Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Problems for the Obama Juggernaut?

Despite Barack Obama's win in the Oregon primary, the results from tonight's Kentucky Democratic presidential primary are stark.

Hillary Rodham Clinton drubbed Obama among the very white working class voters who helped Clinton claim victories in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Consider these findings from the exit polling:

* Among Kentucky voters living in rural areas or small cities -- nearly six in 10 voters -- Clinton took 75 percent to 19 percent.

* Among non-college educated whites in Kentucky (66 percent of the electorate), Clinton won by 44 points -- 69 percent to 25 percent.

* Among whites with a family income less than $50,000, Clinton received 75 percent of the vote while Obama took just 22 percent.

Obama allies insist these sorts of staggering numbers aren't meaningful when it comes to understanding the general election playing field. Obama spent very little time in West Virginia or Kentucky, they argue, and when and if he does this fall the numbers will move up accordingly. They also note that Obama fought Clinton to a draw in Oregon with whites who make under $50,000 and among non college educated white voters, according to exit polling in the Beaver State.

Perhaps. But Obama's struggles in winning over white working class voters in the Rust Belt has to be on the mind of party strategists who recognize the importance of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- each of which has a considerable number of these types of voters -- to their general election calculus.

Putting aside which candidate you support, should the results of Kentucky (and West Virginia) be of concern to Democrats looking to win back the White House in November? Why or why not?

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 20, 2008; 11:26 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Raised $31 Million in April
Next: Winners and Losers: Kentucky and Oregon

Comments

Yo Pablo

In case you were asleep, Loser Gore got more votes than moron Bush.

Posted by: tricoastal | May 24, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

What WVa and KY show is that there are certain critical demographics Obama cannot penetrate. More importantly, though, he claims not to try, which is even more alienating to these voters. Yet he spent millions of dollars in both WV and KY. In other words, his behavior of avoiding areas of conflict but using $$ to try to gain the vote has not succeeded. What is he going to do in the General Election when he has to confront possibly hostile voters face-to-face? Obama has not shown himself to be strong in facing confrontation, or and he is not "quick on his feet." Primaries attract a lower percentage of voters than the GE and Obama's victories have tended to be in the lower turnout states. If only 30% of Democratic voters turn out in a primary, and that is high, Obama needs to be concerned with the majority who didn't turn out, most of them white and working to middle class. Most people are not college educated, or if they are, are more like those college educated students in KY who went for Clinton.

Posted by: Kathy | May 22, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, stay in it. You are battle-tested!

So Obama wants to pay attention to FLA and Mich, now. He acts like a spoiled child, he realized he was not going to win in those states, so he put no effort in. So why should the people of WVA, Kent, and OH want to vote for him? Ummmmmmm!

But what is really unbelieveable, he wants to split the FLA delegates. Get real, they didn't matter before! Why now? After-all Obama is looking for a running-mate. Well, he better pick someone I really respect because I certainly will have to hold my nose and cover my eyes before I vote for him.

I work everyday and I do not have the pleasure of not showing up like Obama. Hey thats a great idea! So lets calculate how much time Obama showed up for work in the Senate, and let him get those percentages of votes. Afterall- if he only gives his contiuents 30%, how much time will he give in the white house? Oh please........

Am I bitter, no. I just WILL not vote for him. Stay home in Nov? I don't know, yet.

Posted by: liz dc | May 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama,

Better realize, this is the United States, meaning everyone matters. He can look the other way and not go to WVA, Kent, OH, etc, and campaign. Guess what, the people of those states won't come out for him, no matter HOW deep his grass-roots campaign is!

Another note, How dare he think he should share in the delegate count from FLA!!!??? what nerve, he didn't care about the people from FLA or Mich because those states went to Clinton. So now, he whines and changes his mind and wants Hillary to share the pie. NO way, the people of FLA did not vote for him. If he so viable, they could have written him in.

So, stay in the race, Hillary because what matters most--is the endurance, do not quit until you cross the finish line, because its more important to finish!
You are tried and true--battle tested.

So Obama -what are you tested in? writing for the law review, submitting legislation?!! oh wait a minute, shouldn't you be present to vote on your submittals?
It must be nice to have a job that you can be abssent so much?!.

Posted by: Liz-DC | May 22, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA WON'T WIN IN NOVEMBER...AND HERE ARE 10 REASONS WHY:

1)He'll get killed over his LACK of experience
2)He'll get killed over the fact he was voted the MOST LIBERAL Senator in Congress.
3)HISPANICS won't vote for him.
4)Working-class WHITES from SWING states won't vote for him.
5)He's a 1/2 black guy, with a muslim name, who's portrayed as anti-american with his flagpin, wife, preacher, etc, from the big city. Way TOO COSMOPOLITAN for independent voters from swing states.
6)He can't tell you the difference between Alan Jackson and Tito Jackson.
7)If America didn't vote for a decorated Vietnam War vet that was white and more experienced (KERRY) against a man as stupid as Bush....WHY would they vote for Obama vs. McCain? Not gonna happen.
8)Obama is (perceived as) a latte-drinking, volvo-driving, hippie-loving, tree-hugging urbanite. Same as Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern, Gore. Loser. Loser. Loser. Loser.
9)His two biggest support groups are blacks and youths: two groups with terrible voter turnout. Will that change? Probably not...just look at how he's doing vs. McCain in the polls right now.
10)Republicans know how to run a national campaign.....Democrats don't.

Posted by: pablo | May 22, 2008 4:07 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi just came out and said that sexism is not an issue for Hillary Clinton in this presidential nomination process:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbzT2YqhGT4

Posted by: Pelosi's Proof | May 22, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Of course the democrats need to look back at the W. Virginia and Kentucky primaries before November. And if Obama wants to win against McCain, he needs to take a very hard look at W. Virginia and Kentucky right now, like yesterday, instead of simply shrugging them off as irrelevant to his big wins in Oregon and elsewhere.
From the beginning of his campaign, it has seemed to me that Obama has worked very, very hard to alienate the under 50 income, white, blue collar, non college educated group of people. Some analysts say Obama is simply reflecting an elitist attitude. I could cut him some slack in that direction with his SF statement. But his repeated turning his back on states or voter blocks in that particular contingent seems now to be, well, deliberate. Which means of course, if they continue to pick up on his hostility toward them and resent it, their vote will go to McCain in November.
I'm just not sure Obama has what it takes though to convince people that he has the vaguest idea what their lives are like or what to do about it. He appears to have no clue.

Posted by: Mary Hammond | May 22, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

just written:

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said women won't suffer a ``step back'' if Democrat Hillary Clinton loses her presidential bid, and rejected the idea of sexism in the presidential campaign.

HERE YOU GO, glad it doesn't exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ulw4dBr7e4


pelosi, brazille, boxer - all dems who support obama - these are they type of "sweetie"'s that would sell their own daughters to get ahead but could never support another woman to get ahead.

obama does not have the experience yet these women support him. why?

Hillary will become our nominee DESPITE these type of women!

Posted by: pelosi is a judas traitor | May 22, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Have they stopped teaching history in school? There are plenty of books out there on the events leading up to the second world war. Read them.

Posted by: 1ahead | May 22, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

This article should be entitled, "Obama Slaughter of McCain Inevitable but Journalists Need to Eat So We Will Make up Stories Like This to Create The Illusion That There is a Race". 4,079 dead in Iraq as of right now. McCain wants to continue the occupation in perpetuity. Obama wants to end it. Election over. Does anybody know who won the Yankees game tonight?

Posted by: Bob Scofield | May 21, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Pretty obvious from many of the comments that the ignorant white boys don't like Obama. Ya' know. Screw 'em. The dem's haven't been able to win with that group since LBJ, and we don't need them. The poor white boys are going to vote republican, because they don't know how to vote their interests.

Hillary is right up there with Linda Tripp at this point, and she has so totally brainwashed her supporters that Obama can't beat McCain, it's insane. Please note that the only people in the game right now that believe this crap that Hillary has a better chance against McCain is Hillary's group. Some how it got into the Clinton's cool-aid that the republican's pretended to be Obama supporters, but the opposite is true. They pretended to be Clinton supporters because they now that Clinton is McCain's only chance to win the presidency.

Posted by: Joseph | May 21, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I am of male gender.
My ancestors were English and Cherokee - but am primarily Caucasian.
My father served in the United States Navy for more than half the years he was alive.
My Grandfather, both Aunts, Uncle, older brothers, and younger brother all served in the Armed Forces.
I am a firm supporter of the Bill of Rights (not just the 1st and 2nd Amendment).
I interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean the "People" just like all other references to "the People" in the Constitution.
I had a public school and Department of Defense primary education - supplemented by the works of the Atomists and Sophists, letters and essays by the Founding Fathers, John Locke, English Common Law, foreign languages, and religious studies.
I work in Information Technologies field, and make over $50,000.00 a year.
I have some college education, but had to discontinue because I could no longer afford to go (White Males are assumed to be able to pay for their own college by the government).
My College studies focused on International Relations, Political Science, History, and Government.

I would rather be a White Woman in the United States than a Black Man - based on the racism, perceived threat of Black Men, difficulty of being considered competent, and living with the distrust of a society that automatically assumes you are only out to get things for yourself.

In Western society, as well as Near Eastern,, there have been numerous female leaders of Nations. Not just in modern times, but dating back to Cleopatra and Nefertiti in Egypt and the Puabi, Queen of the Sumerian City of Ur.

Throughout Asian, Indonesia, Central & South America, females are being chosen for positions of leadership at a far greater rate.

However, it is still very rare for a nation that isn't primarily Black to elect a Black person to lead its people.

Look at Europe. How many Black men or Women have been the Prime Minister or President of the various European countries of Great Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, etc...?

Yet most of those nations have had at one time a female head of state. A quick Google-ing of "Female World Leaders" will return quite a bit information, but "Black World Leaders" seems to confuse Google.

So, could we please focus on the actual Presidential election, and stop focusing on excuses as to why the lesser candidate (even if that does end up being McCain or Obama) lost?

Posted by: Guile McFernis | May 21, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Why can't you all see that there are no radicals/liberals, blue/red states..No Dem's or Repubs. We are all in this country together! And If we don't get our act together we will inevitably go down like other great civilzations in history! SO enough with the polemics!

Posted by: afalvo99 | May 21, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

He lost the same demographics in Oregon. He won, but he didn't get the rural or working class voters. He must've gotten alot of those Republicans for a day again. We know they were accidentally mailed ballots for the democrats. They say it will get sorted out but the exit polls there tell the story. He doesn't connect with the working folks period. Now I hear he changing his comments again with regard to Iran. Whichever way the wind is blowing. How could the DNC be so syupid again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Blacks for Obama 9 to 1 (= Racism)
Elitists for Obama 7 to 3 (= Blind).

Weren't they the so called educated folks (elitists) that created the DotCom disaster and now this mortgage fiasco by duping unsuspecting folks (I call it white collar crime) and selling pipe dreams.

Wake up and smell the impending disaster.
Why is the press giving him and his wifee such a free ride.

Posted by: A bit pissed... | May 21, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

lclon


Please listen to the works of the Rev. Wright - AND tell us why Obama brought his children to listen to this man week after week, year after year.

Then get back to us about racism.

Until then, please read about what Obama did in South Carolina and then tell us who the RACIST is.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the best candidate for President. He currently have most of the delegate votes and will win the Democrat nomination and eventual the Presidency. All racist haters of Obama are ignorant and have nothing decent to say about anyone. Obama have the votes of people who have integrity and does not need the votes of the ignorant racist haters in order to be President.

Posted by: lclon | May 21, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I have a Masters Degree and make far above 50K, I will not support Obama either. How naive are some. All he did was write a book to create a personafication to run on. He grew up white, then decided to throw the white family under the bus, when he figured out he could be African and get ahead easier. He has no experience at anything. Nada. The Democrats don't want to win. Hillary and former John Edwards supports like me will not vote for Obama. There is no substance. I have never seen a bigger raciest than Barack and his wife Michelle. How do they pander.

The electorial college is a winner take all state by state process. If that process was followed. Hillary would clearly be the nominee. How fair are caucauses, whose ever people on the ground are the bigger bullies win. That doesn't make sense. That is not democratic at all.

Barack can not and will not win the States that carry the electorial college. Super Delegates, wake up! You are handing the Republicans 4 more years. You are costing Americans Healthcare. What a mess you are making.

Posted by: joy | May 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


Obama's campaign theme has been destroyed by his own actions. Obama has made his own campaign theme a FRAUD.


That is Obama's major problem right now.

I do not see how he gets out of it. South Carolina was a mistake. Calling out Gerry Ferraro was stupid. Telling the Superdelegates to be fearful of a race revolt if they do not vote for Obama is out of control.

Obama has disqualified himself.


He has shown his inexperience and perhaps complete lack of ability to lead ALL the people of this nation. It's over for Obama - the people of this nation have seen enough already.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 21, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I have been writing about the misogynistic media, pundits, bloggers and Senator Obama since Late February.

Back then there was much less evidence of this misogyny then there is now (eg: Senator Fingers' act post PA debate) and the attitude was "come on, what are you talking about?"

So now we have Senator Finger, ON TAPE,carefully choreographed, flipping off of Hillary, and NUMEROUS acts also ON TAPE by Pundits (such as Olbermann and Matthews) and IN WRITING by columnists, of sexist disrespect of Senator Clinton as a worthy opponent.

AND, I still get "come on, what are you talking about?"

So, I say now to all who care....write to Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and ALL the Democratic leaders how you feel.

We supporters of Hillary are NOT prepared to "play along to get along". We are NOT prepared to "disbelieve our lying eyes". And, lastly, we are NOT prepared to "unite and vote" for the MEDIA and DEMOCRATIC ELITE's choice.

Any honest person can see that Senator Clinton is by far the smarter, better informed and better prepared person to be our next President. And she should not have to "step aside" for this guy who is her inferior in every measurable way, just because he is male.


Posted by: Truth Seeker | May 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

To Democrats Unite.... I, along with so many, think that Obama is the Democrat version of Bush. Can't you see the parallelism? Both talked about non-sensical stuff... Obama's position on race - let's have a real dialogue about race in America. Obama's position on illegal immigrants - let's have a real dialogue about what to do with these people. I bet if one asks him about oil prices, he will prescribe yet another dialogue somewhere. What is "dialogue" to Obama was "compassion" to Bush.

Posted by: CP Cook | May 21, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please!

Who was the front-runner last August when the DNC made the call on MI & FL? Does the name Clinton ring a bell?

True or false: Harold Ickes voted, as a member of the Rules Committee, in favor of the decision to strip the states of their delegates.

Only two possibilities exist: either Hillary didn't give a damn about Michigan and Florida primary voters when that decision was made (and she's now a total hypocrite), or she was so incompetent she couldn't influence the party - or even her own campaign honcho - back when she was thought to be the prohibitive favorite for the nomination (and her current claims of ability to get things done therefore have no basis in fact).

Pick 'em. There's no third explanation.

Posted by: FlownOver | May 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

A big reason that working class whites are voting for Hillary is that they have memories of the old Clinton administration which righted the economy after the first George Bush and left a surplus at the end of its term. The economy was good and the country was in great shape.
Many of the kids who vote for Obama have little to no memory of the Clinton administration and have learned little in school about it. Only the steamy side and the Republican attacks seem to have been communicated to them. You don't think was another aspect of the Republican attack team do you?
Also, the younger set don't quite understand about the dangers of communism, many know little. Kids are still being asked to read The Giver, 1984, Fahrenheit 411 without any understanding of the background and motivations for the authors writing choices. Obama looks good to them. No more dissension, everybody getting along and a place to belong to where HOPE and CHANGE are going to take place. These are kids where with very little history of trauma in their lives so they have no comprehension of what other generations have lived through. Everything is a game and the object is cool and to win.

Posted by: Lynn E | May 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

CP Cook


You are 100% correct, Obama's campaign is seeking to divide.


"Obama is attempting to STEAL the nomination with underhanded RACIST attacks on Bill Clinton, Gerry Ferraro and RACIST threats to the Superdelegates that there will be "riots in the streets" if they do not vote for Obama."

Obama is NOT running a post-racial new politics campaign.


That is a FRAUD.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Please wake me up! I'm having a nightmare. Tell me Obama will fold up and go away. Intelligent people they say are voting for Obama but I've yet to see why. What do they know that I don't? Obama is a liar, obnoxious and sickening to listen too. If you think you are voting for a "God" who will wave a wand over our country and we will be living in paradise, think again, longer and harder. Stop thinking like a idiot!

Posted by: mzha | May 21, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is attempting to STEAL the nomination with underhanded RACIST attacks on Bill Clinton, Gerry Ferraro and RACIST threats to the Superdelegates that there will be "riots in the streets" if they do not vote for Obama."

Posted by: The Truth | May 21, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is attempting to STEAL the nomination with underhanded RACIST attacks on Bill Clinton, Gerry Ferraro and RACIST threats to the Superdelegates that there will be "riots in the streets" if they do not vote for Obama."

Posted by: The Truth | May 21, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

To sum this, Obama is not the unifier that he sells himself to be. His support is primarily the right liberal wing of the Democratic party and black voters. All other demographic groups can't/won't support him primarily of 2 reasons: 1) his lack of experience, and 2) his character issues. Despite resigning to the conventional wisdom that Obama might be the eventual nominee, the vote in Kentucky, PA, and WV are reminders that many Dems just can't vote for Obama on good conscience. I want to see a Dem in the White House, but given that the Dems will have a stronger control of Congress, I don't think it would matter much if McCain eventually wins. BTW, when this happens, we can all blame the rich liberals and the blacks for yet another missed opportunity.

It is funny that looking at the results, it is actually Clinton who transcends gender, religious, economic and racial divides. It is unfortunate that she did not contest several caucuses. It is doubly unfortunate that the caucuses where Obama has taken his lead are controlled by the noisy activist, ultra-liberal few within the Democratic party. When will the Democratic party learn that it is the center that decides, not the extremes, either left nor right?

Posted by: CP Cook | May 21, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Dear Kicked out by Democrats,

I found your response interesting. I never realized that anyone considered Obama a democratic version of Bush. I urge you to take a step back and make an objective comparison. Obama is so clearly superior, intellectually, to Bush - it seems as if it doesn't need mentioning. I've never found Bush charismatic, and he's certainly never inspired the American public.

As far as experience goes, JFK was an "inexperienced dreamer." But great changes began during his presidency that have created a lasting legacy for the generation who elected him. While I was a supporter of Bill Clinton, because I thought he was smart and clearly the best choice against GHW Bush, I can't say he's inspired me the way Obama has. Obama has energized the good will of millions of Americans. I believe as our leader, he will continue to inspire and lead us into action, taking on various social issues at a grassroots level, using the same techniques used in working on his grassroots campaign.

Obama's positions are very close to Senator Clinton's. I started reading his senate webpage about his position and read through his speeches many months before he announced his candidacy. His positions on domestic violence, equal pay for women, and addressing poverty were all issues important to me, and he addressed these issues with depth, detail, AND hope. This is something I think we need to help America overcome the disastrous policies of the last 7 years.

My other major concern has been our standing in the world. Our reputation has been badly damaged. We need a leader who can inspire not only Americans, but citizens of the world, at large. We need someone who will mend fences, not drive tanks through them. The world has become smaller and smaller, making strong international relationship more and more necessary.

I am from a military family, and have a great deal of respect for John McCain and his service to our country. But he is NOT the leader we need right now.

Please vote Obama in November.

Posted by: Democrats Unite | May 21, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

The next big Mash-Up for the Democrats is May 31 Rules Committee Nightmare - On one hand the party has a chance to right what is wrong and seat the Florida and Michigan delegates - on the other hand the party has the chance to finnally prove to everyone that the nomination is there to be stolen.
Is it Obama using the rules and the delegate distribution formulas and his racial baiting ways to steal the nomination OR is it Hillary who will use her insider dealing and smoke filled insider contacts to steal the nomination? Valid Question.

However for Florida and Michigan one can predict a very big weekend for Hillary on May 31 and then the Puerto Rico primary on June 1.

Obama is in for a big deflation - don't know if he will be derailed but the race will get closer.

The issues have to be addressed - the idea of a 48 state convention in a close race with an affirmative action candidate squashing election results in two states is nuts.

The issue is:

First, the state legislatures are sovereign, why in the world do they have to listen to and follow the inside deals which make up the rules of a political party ?

Second, taxpayer funds are involved - the parties are essentially ordering a state how it should spend its money. That is crazy and if a Court ever reviewed that issue, the party would not have much to stand on.

Third, because taxpayer money is involved, Constitutional protections of equal protection should apply - THUS the very selecting of South Carolina and Nevada OVER Florida and Michigan violates the equal protection protections - The COOPERATION of the states which are bound by the 14th Amendment in such a plan which violates the principle of equality among citizens of states is CONSTITUTIONALLY SUSPECT.

Fourth, the Voting Rights of the Citizens should prevail over any other interests in any event - such voting rights are incorporated into the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.


Again, I challenge the right of the party to be able to choose one state over another , in this case to select Nevada and South Carolina over Florida and Michigan

Again I challenge the right of the party to enforce it.

Fifth, the Voters are essentially innocent bystanders in the dispute between Harry Reid of Nevada and Carl Levin of Michigan -

Basically, a penalty is being assessed to the Voters if the Legislature does not grant its authority over elections to the parties. How does that make sense?


Good Luck Rules Committee of the Democrats - the Truth is behind every shadow.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead and vote for someone who could care less about you. Comments like that are the reason many are skeptical about a women even being president. If you are so easily swayed just by your own weak emotions and would do something against your own best interest, i.e.. "I'll show you i'll drown all the children" how could a woman be trusted. Personally, the more I think about it the less I would want any woman as a president. Hillary is such a moron by the way, today she was quoted as saying she read a poll that said 70% of the people said they would vote for a black man before a woman. Interesting thing to say since the basis of her argument is electability. She just said she is less electable because she is a woman so what the hell is she talking about that she is the most electable she just contradicted her argument.. Lets face it, she is such a lier there is no where to go with her, she is a piece of s**t.

++++++++
Millions of women will vote for McCain in November. Obama promised us unity, and instead he gave us a civil war. It's not about the issues anymore - it's personal. Welcome to identity politics. I will gladly vote for McCain in November. And yes, I know it will be Bush's third term. In the end, emotion always beats logic.

Posted by: Jane | May 21, 2008 4:52 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

It is almost like the democrats want to lose. The very idea of putting up an un-vetted candidate in these times of trouble is mind blowing. I truly believe Obama could lose 47 states , that's out of the 50 I count not the 57 he lives in .

Posted by: AC-n-NC | May 21, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"If you think about it, Oregon hippies voted for Obama and he did not win by a huge margin. In KY, Clinton did win by a bigger margin and she won the mainstream 'working white' vote. YES, most of the voters are working whites who earn less that $50K a year. Obama has a weakness. I'm surprised to see the DNC leaders turn against her and back a losing candidate"

They can spit on the woman, the working class whites and everyone else ecept the Afro_American voters. Everyone else is a racist . As can be seen by reading the comments by O supporters, and how the Afro-American community voted. Afro-Americans are IMMUNE from racisim.

Posted by: allblues | May 21, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

There are many Dems who resent the fact that the party is DOMINATED by it's reliance on the Afro-American vote. It is that block that catapulted Obama to many primary victories and proveded him with "MOMENTUM". The party decided that Clinton had to contest Obama with one hand behind her back or be race baited.
Worse she was constrained so that there would not be "RIOTS" in the street if the party did not deliver the nomination to a "viable" Afro-American candidate.
This fear was even bantered about after Clinton Won super tuesday. Clinton has had to tread lightly on anything that The Obama camp could twist into a racist issue . This was a part of Obama's stated stratagy to race bait.
This truth was proven in the memo that was leaked from Obama's camp proving their race bait stratagy.
This was to leverage fear in the Dem party of any insult of the Afro-American community.

Posted by: allblues | May 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

""The O supporters here have absolutely no idea or care how difficult this election has been and how so many of us refuse to sell out our most cherished right to vote to support"

Looks like the above supporter doesn't know that it is not your "cherished right" to vote in the Democratic primary."
-JR quoting LEECHMAN

Yeah... and he claims to be a lawyer... You'd think he'd have sat down at his lawyer desk, used his lawyer computer to look up the relevant cases and precedents before flapping his lawyer gums (One in 1974, One in 1981). But what do you expect from a boomer?

Posted by: Mason | May 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"Millions of women will vote for McCain in November. Obama promised us unity, and instead he gave us a civil war."

Wave goodbye to Roe V. Wade, and any progress on gender equality. Of course, it would be like women to sulk and then cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Posted by: Typical Mysoginst | May 21, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

If you think about it, Oregon hippies voted for Obama and he did not win by a huge margin. In KY, Clinton did win by a bigger margin and she won the mainstream 'working white' vote. YES, most of the voters are working whites who earn less that $50K a year. Obama has a weakness. I'm surprised to see the DNC leaders turn against her and back a losing candidate. I'm sure Obama offered them great things if they backed him but he will not be able to delivers these favors as President.

The way I see it is that the DNC had better see the light and use the convention vote to overturn this mess UNLESS they want McCain to be the next president and subsequently never obtain what Obama offered anyway.

It's like gambling on the stock market You can pick a very risky commodity and if it wins, you can win big, if it fails yo lose everything. BUT if you pick a safe guaranteed commodity you are certain to keep your shirt and make some gains. The DNC, which favors Obama, are going to lose everything. I think they despise the Clintons so much that they are willing to make a huge gamble on Obama even though the odds are big can't win the election. In the end, the DNC has sold us out of getting a Democratic Pres. in hope of making the 'big kill' off of Obama.

Posted by: hmmmmm | May 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Although I did not read every comment, I would guess from the one's I did read that few if any comments mentioned the race subject. Is this not in some way a part of the voting pattern in the states of WV and Kentucky? I'm not saying that all of the votes can be dismissed on the basis of race but anyone can assume that a percentage of white voters both young and old, rich and poor will vote white before black no mater who the candidates are. For all the talk contained in the comments, we still have a problem in this country of coming to grips with race. As to Obama writting off both states, there are only so many hours in a day that can be divided among future supporters. Just as HC has spent a majority of her time with those who are more inclined to support her, so must Obama. Lastly, if the middle and lower class white population is still convinced that the Republicans are in there corner, they should vote in that direction and suffer the results. If Obama is the democratic party selection and looses, I will be disappointed but glad that the party finally found it's courage to ignore the pundits and trust the people.

Posted by: JAD | May 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I think this is just another symptom of a much wider problem in the Democratic party that has existed for years. At least part of the party just isn't ready to embrace the 50 state strategy and what is required to implement it.

It seems to me that SOME people in the Democratic party tend to discount those who don't fit their normal demographic instead of going after them in a sincere and respectful way. Obama should have shown up in Kentucky and West Virginia if he really is sincere about expanding the Democratic map; Clinton found a way to relate to those people; Obama should have at least tried. It should be remembered that Harold Ford, a black man, won 48% of the vote in TN in 2006 in the Senate race, and TN contains a large segment of Appalachia.

Writing a state like Tennessee off is a huge mistake, just like writing off West Virginia is a mistake. The smart move is to keep ALL the possible cards on table; you never know what might happen if you try to win these people over. Why presume failure instead of trying?

I've been reading comments all over the Democratic blogs with those who are frustrated about this phenomenon and who are calling people in Appalachia "hillbillies" and the "Clampett clan" and "racists". But in the next breath those same people are talking about Obama expanding the Democratic map. Talk like that doesn't help expand the map. Democrats can't dismiss people in a geographic area with name calling and then turn around and hope to win their votes. The same goes with talk of cowboy diplomacy while trying to get the votes of cowboys in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

Democrats have to choose -- (1) do Democrats seriously want to expand the map or (2) do you want to dismiss the lifestyles and culture of people who aren't currently voting Democratic or who are Reagan Democrats who cross over in presidential elections? It seems to me Democrats can't have it both ways. I think we should try to be respectful and go after these votes. We may not get some of them, but we will get others and it may be enough to make a difference in November.

Posted by: Concerned Democrat in Flyover Country | May 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse


@ Jane:

Yes, if you are not logical enough to overcome your emotions they will win out everytime.

Unfortunately, that scenario increases the chances that we all lose.

It's only not about the issues if you let it be that way.

Posted by: FrankB | May 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

ANY WEAKNESS SHOULD BE OF CONCERN, AND THE CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME IT SHOULD BE WELCOMED. HOWEVER, "OVERCOME" DOES NOT EQUATE TO "REMOVE". IF DEMS WANT TO WIN BACK THE WHITE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER, THE LAST THING THEY SHOULD DO IS GAMBLE IT AWAY, BY GIVING IT TO THE CANDIDATE WHO CAME IN SECOND PLACE. THE PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEMOCRATIC. IF THE DEMOCRATS REVERSE THE RULES, OR THE RESULTS OF THEIR OWN PROCESS, THEY WILL UNDERMINE THE IDEALS, CREDIBILITY AND STRENGTH OF THEIR PARTY. PEOPLE WILL COME BACK FROM THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF THEIR FAVORED CANDIDATE LOSING, LONG BEFORE THEY WILL COME BACK FROM THEIR FAVORED CANDIDATE HAVING THE NOMINATION STOLEN FROM THEM. IT IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC OPTION. THEREFORE, THE WINNER OF THE RACE SHOULD CONTINUE TO RUN. HE SHOULD RUN WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A QUITE BRILLIANT CAMPAIGN. HE SHOULD RUN, AS HE HAS, REDEFINING MORE THAN ONE NOTION OF WHAT ELECTABILITY IS. HE SHOULD RUN, AS HE WAS NOMINATED TO, BY THE RULES, AND THROUGH A PROCESS THAT SHOULD ALWAYS REMAIN TRUE TO IT'S NAME, "DEMOCRATIC". AND HE SHOULD RUN WITH THE TRUEST OF THE PARTY IN FULL TOW, HELPING HIM TO OVERCOME THE WEAKNESSES, AND MORESO, HELPING HIM TO CAMPAIGN THE STRENGTHS THAT BROUGHT HIM THIS FAR, AND EVEN MORESO, SUPPORTING HIM THROUGH HIS VICTOTY IN NOVEMBER, AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATION.

Posted by: Frances | May 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Millions of women will vote for McCain in November. Obama promised us unity, and instead he gave us a civil war. It's not about the issues anymore - it's personal. Welcome to identity politics. I will gladly vote for McCain in November. And yes, I know it will be Bush's third term. In the end, emotion always beats logic.

Posted by: Jane | May 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

To anyone that claims Obama's campaign has been dirty or below-the-belt, please explain what smearing Obama has done that HRC hasn't. Name calling, and digging into the past of opponents, isn't that the way politics goes by nature? I don't think either of those tactics have a place in modern politics but this is the nature of the beast. If you want to analyze smearing, analyze how HRC or Obama react to it. Obama has handled it like a true politician, and that's why I'm behind him. The attacks on him have been far-reaching and enough to drive anyone crazy but it doesn't seem to change his primary focus. To the HRC supporters, do you feel insulted at the way he hasn't been talking about her at all of lately? Is it the fact that the numbers show one thing while "analysis" trys to assert that she's somehow better by some metric we haven't come to grips with yet? Her campaign is running at a loss. Any citizen, I don't care if you're black, white, yellow, white-collar, blue-collar, making + or - $50K, if you were in as much debt as she's in, without a real way to finance it, the credit rating agencies wouldn't let you hear the end of it for 7 years even if you turned your situation around today. So why is it that she gets a pass? We need to hold candidates by the same standards we have to live by. The party needs to be unified so let's stop crying about NOTHING. This is politics, nothing personal.

Posted by: DW | May 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

It is a terrible shame that Obama's supporters won't follow his lead and treat Hillary's supporters with respect. As a poster noted above, groups like Move On and DFA have virtually pushed us non-Obamaites out the door.

I think the party has a MUCH bigger problem than any of you are recognizing. I have never voted for a Republican in my life, I have contributed to and hosted parties for Move On and DFA, and I [used to] be active on left-wing blogs until non-Obamaites were essentially thrown out.

Yet I am at a loss re how to vote in November. I truly believe that Obama is the Democratic version of George Bush -- charismatic, inexperienced, and running on slogans that are impossible to quantify, much less govern by. What does a government of hope do? I don't have a clue -- and I'm a wonk who has read the website and watched the speeches.

So. John McCain will nominate judges who will almost certainly turn back Roe v. Wade. That's a problem for me. But, aside from the judges, when you compare the two candidates based on experience, McCain wins hands down. Do I vote to put the country into the hands of another inexperienced dreamer because of my pro-choice position? I truly don't know.

And, for the record, in addition to being a life-long Democrat, I'm a college educated card carrying member of the ACLU with an income well over $50,000. You're kidding yourselves if you think the problem is a few racists in the rust belt. This country is in a world of trouble and all the hope in the universe is not going to change that. We need people in charge who know how to govern... and before you tell me that running a great campaign and raising lots of money makes Obama a proven leader, can I remind you that George Bush was also a great campaigner and great fundraiser.

The bottom line: many of us are truly troubled by the decision we have to make. And calling us racists, cry-babies, sore losers, and whining women does not make that reality go away. No matter how you count it somewhere near half of the Democratic primary voters voted against Obama. I'd suggest that his supporters lay off the immature taunting and mindless repetition of empty slogans. (Give me an H! Give me an O!..) Spend your time helping the rest of us see why Obama deserves our vote.

Posted by: Kicked out by Democrats | May 21, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win a general election. He is a leftist & has always been a lefty liberal. Obama has leaned even futhur left for this Democratic primary. No way he can possibly stake out the middle ground now. Although, he will try to do just that for the general election. McCain has the middle: moderate Republicans, moderate democrats & independents. Hopefully, conservative republicans will also come out to vote for McCain & he will be easily be the victor.

Posted by: reason | May 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman: He must be the nominee because he has won the most delegates, it's a delegate race.

Oh, he also has won more superdelegates, twice as many states and the popular vote.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"Where in my post do I disparage the people of Kentucky? I am pointing out demographics, nothing more.

So take your distortions and give them to Hillary for her next talking points."

Sorry jefro I meant "Leichtman"

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Jefro3000: Where in my post do I disparage the people of Kentucky? I am pointing out demographics, nothing more.

So take your distortions and give them to Hillary for her next talking points.

Posted by: JR | May 21, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Its kind of pathetic that every O supporter including jr have nothing positive to say about yesterday's results other than what low esteam they hold the citizens of W. Va and Kentucky.

We have also been told that Sen O must be the nominee b/c of his string support in places like N Carolina and Missouri. And this is what that strong support looks like thia in N Carolina, New Hampshire,Florida, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio and Texas where his supporters claim he is competitive:

North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 51, Obama 43 McCain +8.0
Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 46, Clinton 48 Clinton +2.0
Missouri: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 48, Obama 45 McCain +3.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Democracy Corps (D) Clinton 49, McCain 47 Clinton +2.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Democracy Corps (D) Obama 48, McCain 46 Obama +2.0

Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton VCU McCain 47, Clinton 38 McCain +9.0
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama VCU McCain 44, Obama 36 McCain +8.0
Tuesday, May 20


General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen Tracking Obama 44, McCain 45 McCain +1.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Gallup Tracking Clinton 48, McCain 44 Clinton +4.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Gallup Tracking Obama 47, McCain 44 Obama +3.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 43, Clinton 50 Clinton +7.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 45, Obama 44 McCain +1.0
McCain 53, Clinton 36 McCain +17.0
Minnesota: McCain vs. Clinton Star Tribune McCain 40, Clinton 49 Clinton +9.0
Minnesota: McCain vs. Obama Star Tribune McCain 38, Obama 51 Obama +13.0
Saturday, May 17
Race Poll Results Spread
New Mexico: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 47 Clinton +6.0
Friday, May 16
Race Poll Results Spread
Kansas: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 53, Clinton 39 McCain +14.0
Kansas: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 55, Obama 34 McCain +21.0
Arkansas: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 39, Clinton 53 Clinton +14.0
Arkansas: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 57, Obama 33 McCain +24.0
Thursday, May 15
Race Poll Results Spread
Iowa: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 45, Clinton 42 McCain +3.0
Iowa: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 42, Obama 44 Obama +2.0
Georgia: McCain vs. Obama Strategic Vision (R) McCain 54, Obama 40 McCain +14.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Obama 45, Clinton 41 Obama +4.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, McCain 41 Clinton +5.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac Obama 47, McCain 40 Obama +7.0
Race Poll Results Spread
West Virginia Democratic Primary Suffolk Virginia: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 41 McCain +6.0
North Carolina: McCain vs. Clinton PPP (D) McCain 46, Clinton 38 McCain +8.0
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 47, Obama 44 McCain +3.0
North Carolina: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 43, Clinton 40 McCain +3.0
North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama PPP (D) McCain 49, Obama 42 McCain +7.0
North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 45 McCain +3.0
Kentucky Democratic Primary Research 2000 Clinton 58, Obama 31 Clinton +27.0
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 45, Obama 44 McCain +1.0
Michigan: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 44 Tie
Kentucky: McCain vs. Clinton Research 2000 McCain 53, Clinton 41 McCain +12.0
Kentucky: McCain vs. Obama Research 2000 McCain 58, Obama 33 McCain +25.0
Race Poll Results Spread
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 40, Clinton 46 Clinton +6.0
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen Obama 52, McCain 38 Obama +14.0
Saturday, May 10
Race Poll Results Spread
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton LA Times/Bloomberg Clinton 47, McCain 38 Clinton +9.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Hotline/FD Clinton 46, McCain 43 Clinton +3.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Hotline/FD Obama 47, McCain 43 Obama +4.0
Texas: McCain vs. Clinton Research 2000 McCain 53, Clinton 38 McCain +15.0
Texas: McCain vs. Obama Research 2000 McCain 52, Obama 39 McCain +13.0
Thursday, May 08
Race Poll Results Spread
Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 45, Clinton 43 McCain +2.0
Missouri: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 47, Obama 41 McCain +6.0
Georgia: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 48, Clinton 37 McCain +11.0
Georgia: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 53, Obama 39 McCain +14.0
West Virginia Democratic Primary TSG Consulting (D) Clinton 63, Obama 23 Clinton +40.0
Wednesday, May 07
Race Poll Results Spread
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 43 McCain +4.0
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 47, Obama 43 McCain +4.0
Tuesday, May 06
Race Poll Results Spread
North Carolina Democratic Primary Insider Advantage Obama 47, Clinton 43 Obama +4.0
Kentucky Democratic Primary Rasmussen Clinton 56, Obama 31 Clinton +25.0
North Carolina Democratic Primary Zogby Tracking Obama 51, Clinton 37 Obama +14.0
Indiana Democratic Primary Zogby Tracking Clinton 43, Obama 45 Obama +2.0
Kentucky Democratic Primary SurveyUSA Clinton 62, Obama 28 Clinton +34.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination Ipsos Obama 40, Clinton 47 Clinton +7.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Ipsos Clinton 47, McCain 42 Clinton +5.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Ipsos Obama 46, McCain 42 Obama +4.0
Monday, May 05
Race Poll Results Spread
North Carolina Democratic Primary Insider Advantage Obama 48, Clinton 45 Obama +3.0
Indiana Democratic Primary InsiderAdvantage Clinton 48, Obama 44 Clinton +4.0
West Virginia Democratic Primary Rasmussen Clinton 56, Obama 27 Clinton +29.0
North Carolina Democratic Primary Zogby Tracking Obama 48, Clinton 40 Obama +8.0
North Carolina Democratic Primary PPP (D) Obama 53, Clinton 43 Obama +10.0
Indiana Democratic Primary Suffolk Clinton 49, Obama 43 Clinton +6.0
Indiana Democratic Primary PPP (D) Clinton 51, Obama 46 Clinton +5.0
Indiana Democratic Primary Zogby Tracking Clinton 42, Obama 44 Obama +2.0
North Carolina Democratic Primary General Election: McCain vs. Clinton USA Today/Gallup Clinton 46, McCain 49 McCain +3.0
Texas: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 49, Clinton 43 McCain +6.0
Texas: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 43 McCain +5.0
Sunday, May 04
Indiana Democratic Primary Zogby Tracking Clinton 41, Obama 43 Obama +2.0
Favorable +21.0
Clinton: Favorable/Unfavorable USA of New Hampshire McCain 49, Obama 43 McCain +6.0
Friday, May 02
Race Poll Results Spread
North Carolina Democratic Primary Rasmussen Obama 49, Clinton 40 Obama +9.0
North Carolina Democratic Primary InsiderAdvantage Obama 49, Clinton 44 Obama +5.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 41 McCain +10.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 43, Obama 42 McCain +1.0
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 49 Clinton +8.0
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 44, Obama 43 McCain +1.0

Posted by: Leichtman | May 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

What is all the talk about Obama trying to disenfranchise MI and FL voters? Were you people paying attention when all the candidates agreed to the rules and sanctions imposed on those states before the primaries started? Of course, at the time HRC was the inevitable nominee and had nothing to lose. Now that she's hopelessly behind, she suddenly wants to change the rules, essentially disenfranchising voters in states which FL and MI tried to preempt. It seems that HRC has a problem playing by the rules - even the ones she helped write!

Posted by: Jefro3000 | May 21, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"The O supporters here have absolutely no idea or care how difficult this election has been and how so many of us refuse to sell out our most cherished right to vote to support"

Looks like the above supporter doesn't know that it is not your "cherished right" to vote in the Democratic primary.

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The world is laughing at us as we bicker at about who will be the next president. We are fighting a war against the US Dollar and american business and losing every day. Our President looks like some street begger to other world leaders and we are off pretending we are again on our way to the land of Oz or is that Camel-ot. I was told I get my history wrong by some one who chose to speak from the heart and not the reality of the events We, I regret, are at the cross roads of our future and no one is minding the store.

Kennedy could of shut Vietnam down but chose to escalate it. He needed that macho image and was going to show the world just how strong we were. Look into his documentaion on why he chose to do this and don't gag when you read it for yourself.

I met President Johnson and as a man I liked him very much. Even though he could not always understand why as president he was not the King of the USA. He left almost a broken man because he could not understand why he no longer had the support of the American People. He had given them everything he was and it was not enough.

I cannot ever call Jimmy Carter Mr. President! If you take the time to understand the damage he did to our Intel
and security angencies and then count the bodies he left around the world from abandoning our suppoters. He can never make up for the harm he did to this country. No matter how many houses he builds.

Mr. Bill proved that we must have a really capable group of government employee's because they did an outstanding job as he dodged the press and his legal problems.

I'm tired of the mess that has been created by both parties and I think it is time for us to demand only the very best. Only the very best is what we should have during this very challenging period of our history. Why are we not demanding and expecting from them only the very best and most capable candidates.

Yes I can say "America" right or wrong because I still believe in all that America has to offer each and everyone of us.

President Johnson I think I now understand
what is was you meant. When I found you setting in the dark on Air Force One that August afternoon in 1965. He said "I no longer know my friends or who my enamies are but I do know that I am alone now and have to answer for it all. You would be Presidents should think everyday about those words of wisdom.

We need to take the time again to become one people and all pull together for our common good. Take the me and I out of the conversations and use instead us, we and all because that is who we are. America is a country of its people and always has been.

So take the time to stop calling each other names and being concerned only about ones party. Let us all look after America
together and build for a better future.

There is greatness here, so take the time to find it.

Posted by: Dickh | May 21, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The results in WVA, PA, KY and OH shoukd concern Democrats only if they cannot somehow convince Clinton supporters that, no matter how they feel about Obama, any Democrat is preferabale to McCain or any Republican. I home that ther is not enough sore loser attitude among Clinton's female supporters to prevent them from voting for a man and not enough blind racism and fear among the rest for them not be able to summon the courage to vote for a black. What have white men in the Oval Office done for us lately?

Posted by: Pennsylvanian | May 21, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The demographics in Oregon say more about the nation as a whole than the demographics in Kentucky.

Kentucky = mostly poor, uneducated whites.
Oregon = A balance of demographics

Obama won the vote in Oregon in every demographic including whites who make less than 50k per year and did not graduate from college.

Like bugs-bunny used to say: Chris Cizilla, what a maroon!

Posted by: jr | May 21, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

We all know what inexperience has gotten us into (by the way I did not vote for that idiot!) So my question to you is Why would you want another inexperienced idiot running the country? I'll vote for the one who has more experience even though I am not a Republican.

Posted by: joe | May 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

They WILL seat the delegates from FL & MI...probably at half of votes...with 'uncommitted' votes given to Obama in Mich, because he wasn't on the ballot (this option favors Clinton HEAVILY). Which makes the magic # 2131 delegates.
As of today the count is:
----Current Count---FL---MI---Supers---Total --Votes needed to win
Obama-1680---41---28-----308-----2057--- 74
Clinton-1518---52---36-----280-----1886--- 245

This is a BEST case scenario for Sen. Clinton....and yet, Sen. Obama is still in the lead by 171 votes.
There are only 4 primaries & 138 pledged delegates left in the nomination process.
TAKE NOTE: 114 of the undeclared super delegates are in states that Obama won & only 85 are from states that Hillary won.
Obama will be our nominee.
Seriously, Obama winning the nomination is the ONLY way the Dems will win in the general election. Hillary has a VERY strong Dem base...but the swing votes WON'T vote for her. Obama will get the majority of Dems, the Independents & the crossover republicans. And don't forget the millions of new voters Obama's campaign helped register...the Dem party is bigger and broader than ever. It's a no-brainer on the national scale

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I hesitate to join in this discussion given its decidedly immature tone, but I just want have a couple things noted about Obama's so called failure to secure working whites (or whatever I'm called these days). First, Kentucky and West Virginia are wonderful places I'm sure, but the likelihood of them going for a democrat is small, regardless of who the nominee is. 30% of dems voted for Bush over Kerry in both states (precisely the number of Clinton voters that said they would not vote for Obama). And both Clinton and Obama lose this white working class vote to McCain nationwide by about 7 points. As someone said, dems haven't carried (majority) this demographic since 1964 or something.
So the real question is whose can bring together the collation to make up the difference? Obama draws significantly from voters under 40 (or maybe 30), college educated and independents not too mention that he'll run up record numbers in the African American's vote as well. He wins large margins in all these categories so if he can win 40 percent (where he is at now I think) of the white working class vote, he can win in states that Clinton can't while winning those she will. For example, under that premise he will be able to hold Michigan and Penn, make Ohio close (I think he loses Fl). He'll win Colorado, Virigina, and Iowa (and maybe with Richardson's help - New Mexico) and perhaps even North Carolina (or at least make it close). I'm sorry but Clinton cannot win those states - everyone seems to forget her high general election negative numbers and how polarizing (motivating) she is to republicans. The idea that she carries this white working class vote in the general any better than Obama is questionable.

Posted by: Tony | May 21, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

It's disheartening to read the comments of Democrats responding to articles such as this, when I thought the number 1 goal all along was to get the Republicans out of the White House and to give the new Democratic President large majorities in Congress. Let's face it, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would make a great President. But, we can only have one President and hopefully that person will be the one who wins the Democratic nomination according to the rules. I simply cannot believe that anyone interested in the survival of our country would vote for a man, who has made it clear that he will continue the failed policies of George Bush for another four years. Is that what any of you really want? I don't think so. Thus, it's past time that we quit arguing among ourselves and unite behind the Democratic nominee for President. Otherwise, the nightmare will continue, and we'll have only ourselves to blame for it.

Posted by: Caliguy55 | May 21, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

MSU don't be bullied. The O supporters here have absolutely no idea or care how difficult this election has been and how so many of us refuse to sell out our most cherished right to vote to support a lightwight State Senator many of us feel is totally unqualified to be the most powerful person in the world.We take our civic responsibility seriously sir, just like you.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 21, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!
ONLY the media/mysogynists/sexists/neo-cons/Karl Rovians, etc, etc!!!! (Obama included with the "SWEETIE" comment that SO EASILY rolled out of his mouth) want you to believe that Hillary is this total evil......Over 17 milliion voters know what Hillary represents!!!

Obama can NOT carry electoral votes to win the general election. THAT!!!! already shows!!.......It is AMAZING considering ALL the money he has spent.......We're not talking about just a few people in this country not drinking the Kool-Aid.
The WORST part of ALL!!!! is that Obama has split the Democratic party ......THAT!!! alone just goes to show that he is not really running because he really cares about this country.......
Yes, a perfectly INEXPERIENCED nobody is going to come in and fix everything, even though he has not said ONE THING about HOW he will DO ANYTHING!!!......Just FOLLOW me, it's ALL in the Kool-Aid. And anybody that thinks his millions upon millions came from all the little guys is down-right stupid. Come on!!!, this (Obama) is a well-oiled machine.

By the way, the race is NOT OVER!!!!
HILLARY WILL WIN AND CARRY OUR COUNTRY OUT OF THIS MESS WE HAVE!!!!.....HILLARY WILL MAKE HISTORY!

Posted by: librairie | May 21, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse


To those who would say that Obama has not offered comprehensive solutions to the issues that we face as a country, I would say: You haven't been listening.

Go to the candidates websites. All the information is there. The notion that Obama is all talk and no substance and does not have the experience to lead the country is the propagation of Clinton campaign rhetoric.

Neither one of them has presidential experience. Yes, Hillary lived in the White House, but this is not direct experience, in my opinion. Bill had no Washington experience and he did just fine because he is smart, politically savvy and genuinely cared about America...all the things that the inexperienced Bush was/is not.

So, again, as many other posters have submitted, if you are a Clinton supporter that chooses not to vote for your legitimately selected Democratic candidate, then I question why you were supporting a democrat in the first place. The policies between Clinton and Obama are so similar as to be inconsequential.

Posted by: FrankB | May 21, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter who worked in her NH campaign and who has donated $$ to her campaign twice. I'm extremely disappointed that she will not be the Democratic nominee unless some extraordinary situation arises.
I am also a 65 yr.old white male college graduate and resent being told by other commenters that I must suck up my displeaure with Sen. Obama and vote for him whilst I hold my nose. The last time I checked, this is still the USA, and I can vote or not vote for whomsoever I please.
I could not, in good conscience, vote for Sen. McCain as he, in my eyes, represents a continuation of the Bush failed policies and a prolonged Iraq martial quagmire. He is a fine American but has chosen the wrong path politically and morally.
This leaves me with Sen. Obama or no one to vote for. I've waited to be inspired, to hear a comprehensive plan to leave Iraq, get the economy back on its' feet, and reform health care in a meaningful way so that all citizens may benefit. So far, none of these messages have been forthcoming from the the Illinois senator. Vague promises of unity and happy days once the elections are over seem to be the substance of his great promise. Why should someone, as ancient as I, be convinced by empty slogans and a charismatic personality that he is the one to lead the country.
I must admit that I'm not. Therefore, I've decided that if the best candidate of the three won't be running in November, I'll refrain from voting for president and cast my vote for the Democratic aspirants to Congress to keep Pres. McCain in check and to accomplish the Democratic party agenda. Senator Obama will need to show me and the voters of this country a great deal more than he has if he expects any other outcome.

Posted by: MSUGrad | May 21, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, when did HRC get religion? I never recall her saying religion was so important before. Why is she in such debt, lack of supporters or poor organizational skills? If you want to talk about spouses, Bill Clinton has shamed the presidency during this campaign and already spent any political capital he had. One thing I will say, please don't take Jim Webb away from Virginia, we need him in the Senate! Dems will never carry West VA or Kentucky but we will carry Oregon!
Sharon

Posted by: Sharon | May 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"I don't care about issues at all. I feel bad for po' widdle Hillary, so I'm gonna vote against the meanines that beat her."
Obviously you must be about 10 years old.

You and nancy making comments like "Seems to me the so called support she has is weak at best " seems to over look that your great campaign lost Ca by 10%, W. Va by 41%, Ky by 35% and Pa by almost 10%. Not something you should be so bold to brag about and insult.

Go ahead and keep trashing your opponents and everyone over 25 years old mason and nancy, that should work well for you and your campaign in Nov.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 21, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I have to do this correction every so often.

Chamberlain went to negotiate over the Sudetenland knowing that the Torys (with plenty of liberal help) had gutted the British Army after WWI. However weak Hitler actually was, Chamberlain nknew that Britain was weaker. Essentially Chamberlain sold out the Czechs to buy time to rearm Britain. His stiff upper lip on his return was just an ineffective poker face. Britain, first under him and then under Churchill (one of the disarmers, by the way) began feverishly rearming. Itis unlikely that ANY of Britains leaders really bought the "Peace in our time" rhetoric.

This version was throwing hamburger to a pit bull to distract him till the Dog Wardens can come get him.

Obama hasn't ever offered meat to the dog, merely decided that if he doesn't attack the dog, the dog won't attack him. Talking to Ahmadenijad sure beats watching Ahmadenijad gain political clout by sinking opur carriers, cruisers, frigates, and stores ships in the Persian gulf and bragging in the Islamic world about how he defeated the uncircumcised crusaders. Roosevelt has still under the assumption that Japan was willing to talk when he was informed of the fourteen part message that meant Japan had decided to drop all pretenses and attack the U. S.

As long as our enemies will talk, we should talk. Monitor their communications, watch their military's maneuvering, try to guess their intent, but talk any way.

About what Obama actually calls for.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | May 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Regarding someone's suggestion of Senator Webb as VP on an Obama/Webb ticket - hopefully, Senator Webb has something larger in mind for the future. Going down with the ship in 08' may not fit with his plans. Senator Obama should choose someone the Democrats can afford to lose, maybe Senator Kerry, Leahy, Rockefeller or McCaskill.

Posted by: C.C. | May 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

what a bunch of CHILDISH comments & taunts---from those who support Barack AND those who support Hillary. some of you sound like you're still in elementary school. it is unfortunate that these two are running at the same time. they both bring incredible strengths, and we are lucky to have both. i have been wavering between them because they do offer so much. but a HUGE KEY to how i will vote in november is: what kind of judges will the next president put on the supreme & federal courts? those judges will have a much longer impact upon our lives than the next president will!

Posted by: scott | May 21, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

My vote is still McCain if not Hillary. My opinion of Obmama is not going to change in the next few months. His church, his associations, his wife, his financial dealings. Nope. I and my husband are going Independent next month and voting Republican for the first times in our life. So, call us Racists or uneducated or worse. He is to inexperienced to run this country.

Posted by: Sherry | May 21, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

jansjay and other O worshippers: Where in the world to you think you are instructing us to support your guy. Why b/c you tell us to just as likely the same way you talk to your parents. All of your bullying tactics which has gone on here for months is counter productive and in fact making many of us less likely to march to your orders.

And this comment: But we shouldn't kowtow to the right wing of our party whose presence hinders our ability to achieve our goals.

And neither shpould we be forced to kowtow to the extreme left wing of the party. Many of us who were founding members of moveon and DFA received the same message. We were instructed to support Sen O and threatened with expulsion if we refused. Perhaps many of you O supporters just don't get it. Many of us are socially liberal and economically conservative, that makes us moderates not right winge so are you are so fond of labeling usMany of us don't agree with Sen O's plan to double cap gains taxes and think HC's plan of raising it 33% is just fine. Many of us are professionals and investors and don't think lifting the payroll tax from $107,000 to $250,000 is such a great idea eitehr or cowtowing to genY and genX supporters by allowing them to opt out of healthcare as Sen O has advocated and let the rest of us pick up the tab for them by paying higher premiums then necy under his plan.

You can call us names, yell at us and describe us as right wingers, but just remember, the last time the D party was taken over by the extreme left of the party and acted as many O supporters here, pushing moderates out of the party, our nominee lost 49 states. If that is the attitude of your new party, congrats, that may well be the same outcome in the fall.

So far all I have heard is that exact same message from Sen O and his supporters.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 21, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Don't put my city in greater danger with John McCain because you have to make a point.

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Mary & Michelle,


Yeah, it must be terrible for you guys. Let's all get under the covers and sob. Honestly, Barack Obama is not a bad guy. I regret that your candidate didn't win. Hillary is my senator, I live in New York. I voted for her in '06. But, I supported Obama in the primary. We can all have our pride, That much I understand. But don't write the guy off. He's so much better than John McCain. PLEASSEEE! Stay. Or, if you really can't, don't sandbag us. I know you think we sandbagged Hillary. And let me just say, as both a Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama supporter and a New Yorker, we have to be team players. Come on. Don't join the other side.

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Until we know how many Republicans in those states crossed over to vote for Hillary the question is almost moot. In my mind the fact that Obama supporters are contributing to Obama...if Hillary has so many supporters...why is she over $20 million in debt for her campaign? Seems to me the so called support she has is weak at best and they would probably not vote for her or any Democrat in November.

Posted by: Nancy R | May 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, all you POORLY INFORMED Obama supporters, 1964 is NOT the last time KY or WV went Democratic, and they don't ALWAYS vote Republican.

Bill Clinton won those states in 1992 and 1996, by not calling them stupid names or offending them with arrogance.

Now, if the Obama campaign or the MSNBC retards told you 1964 was the last time, the MISLED you.

They must think you're too poorly informed to know better, and easily led. You know, kinda like Bush wingnuts or Limbaugh dittoheads.

Posted by: Mary | May 21, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

For all who say that a democrat who states that if Obama is the nominee, they will vote for McCain, seem to think that we are Repugs.
Well guess again, we are middle of the road Dems who just don't like Obama's politics and the DNC gaming against Hillary Clinton. What we will look at --McCain will be President BUT will have to deal with a Democratic lead Congress, which will force both parties to work together or stall mate each other. The last option will be remembered by the voters,as occurred in the 2006 elections.

Posted by: Michele | May 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

These reverse racism arguments are digressive. Come on, guys. If you're not going to vote for Barack Obama fine. But stop acting like cry babies. Why do I have to care what conservatives want my party to look like? I'm the left wing guy, I have to ignore those resistant to change. But stop this reverse racism/affirmative action argument. Stop this I can't vote for Obama because my feelings were hurt that my vote didn't count in Florida, or Hillary didn't win, or "he can't win." Take a chance. And if you're not going to, then shut the hell up. It's tired. You sound tired. And you're going to be on the wrong side of history on this one. But I'm sure you love that. But we shouldn't kowtow to the right wing of our party whose presence hinders our ability to achieve our goals. Besides, "Reagan Democrats" aren't the only voters out there. Enough middle name/pastor nonsense. If I wanted a reaction like that, I'd ask a fifteen year old what they thought. Grow up, America! And stop this reverse racism. As if it's so bad to be white. It's bad to earn less than $100,000 in this country. We're not included in the benefits of a Reagan-Bush economy. So, stop yelling at black people who share the same situation as you. Just vote for Obama and stop telling me you're not comfortable with him. I hate to sound so fascistic, but it looks like some of you guys need to hear it. Christ.


"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men --extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
-Luke 18:11-14.

Think about it.

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Kathy:
"Trailer trash" isn't any more of a racial term than "Gangbanger".

They are ignorant, or at least uneducated. Look at the demos.

Vincent:
Webb doesn't want the job, and has said so on multiple occasions.

Posted by: Mason | May 21, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

It's not racism. It's CULTURAL.

These same "Appalachians" (MSNBC's new word for excusing Obama's weaknesses) rejected John Kerry, too.

Hopey/changey la la la la doesn't work with these rugged Scots-Irish people.

They're PRAGMATISTS, but they're not racists.

Saying they are, is a copout, and divides the Democratic Party even more.

So....if Clinton wins hugely in Puerto Rico, will you and MSNBC call them "Appalachians" too?

Posted by: Mary | May 21, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

In response to kathy5's post at 1:44pm:

Hillary Clinton has lost. If you're a Democrat vote your interest and support Obama.

Stop making excuses by accusing his supporters as being raciest, and pointing to irrevelant issues to not support him such as Wright, Michele Obama's comments, and experience.

These excuses are bigger than supporting your party and your economic interest?

Don't be a sore loser, get out there and support Senator Obama!

Posted by: jansjay | May 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Poor MJ. Such thin skin.

Sack up, wuss. If you voted for Hillary on issues but then you turn around and vote for McCain because you were disrespected, you're nothing but a foo'. This ain't junior high class president we're voting for here. There are real issues of consequence to consider when making this choice. McCain and HRC are nothing alike, and to say you would vote for the former after voting for the latter makes me question if you aren't one of those Reagan "Democrats". If you're not, you've got one clear choice on the issues. Don't let your pride get in the way.

Posted by: Mason | May 21, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone be so concerned about WV and KKKY when they will most likely vote Repub., in the first place. And who by the way, would want these two states deciding the direction of this great nation. I for one, would place my bet on the majority of the country to decide.

Posted by: May | May 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone be so concerned about WV and KKKY when they will most likely vote Repub., in the first place. And who by the way, would want these two states deciding the direction of this great nation. I for one, would place my bet on the majority of the country to decide.

Posted by: May | May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Results from West Virginia, Kentucky and several other states show why James Webb is the perfect complement to Obama and the best choice for a vice presidential nominee.

Posted by: Vincent | May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

When will Obama supporters get it? It is not that people such as myself cannot be pursuaded to vote for him should be become the victor - after reading his supporters comments regarding ANYONE who will not vote for him or even suggests they will not vote for him I can no longer support him. Now, this may be wrong, it may be right but it is my feeling - I cannot separate him from his supporters and you guys are the worst. You talk about Hillary being racist, you talk about anyone who is white that won't vote for him - gotta be racist and you then have the aducity to make such horrible remarks about Hillary's supporters, calling them ignorant, trailer trash, toothless, inbred - sweet Jesus! Call it what you will but I will call it racist - you seem to think that because you support a man of color you and he are the only ones that can use that term but I'm saying right here and now - RIGHT BACK AT YA!

Further, I'm not a racists in any way, however, I cannot support Obama or vote for him because of a couple of things I simply cannot let go of:

1. Reverend Wright and Obama's 20+ years spent supporting that church (but no longer since it might harm his chances at the presidency)
2. Michelle Obama's proclimation "for the first time, I'm proud of my country" words

Not to mention the fact that I just don't think the man is qualified to be president - not enough experience. He has not paid his dues which attests to his lack of experience.

And YES, it does matter.

Posted by: kathy5 | May 21, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

There are many reasons for super delegates to go with Senator Clinton; the first being that Senator Obama can not put 270 electoral votes into play in November. This is no small thing if one wants to have a Democratic president. Second, Senator Clinton will have received the most popular votes when the primaries are over. Also, many of the popular votes cast for Senator Obama were from states in which the Democrats don't have a prayer in the general election (e.g., SC, GA, AL and MS) while Senator Clinton has won in exactly the states that will be needed in the Fall.

The true choice is whether Senator Obama would rather win as VP on a ticket with Senator Clinton, or lose as the candidate in top position on the ballot.

Posted by: C.R. | May 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Go ahead and vote like that, Gary. Fly your moron flag high and proclaim to all the world, "I don't care about issues at all. I feel bad for po' widdle Hillary, so I'm gonna vote against the meanines that beat her."

I'll be the one saying, "I told you so," after JSMc starts another war, does nothing about the budget or Iraq, and appoints conservative justices to the SCOTUS. Take a chill pill, and look McCain vis-a-vis Obama. If you liked HRC's issues, you've only got one choice. If you didn't, then why are you voting in a Democratic Primary?

Posted by: Mason | May 21, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama has some work to do. What reaaly needs to happen though is that Hillary, if she can bow out without whining endlessly (count on Bill for plenty of that), and work to bring people together, this will be less of an issue.

He will win many over. Going against McCain and his many Bush-same stances, not too many will vote against Obama despite wanting Hillary more. There will be racial lines in some places. There will be those who won't vote for him because she didn't win. But I expect most will vote for change.

Posted by: Larry L | May 21, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 wrote: (among other offensive things):
So, Hillary's "support" amounts to a few aged shrill angry old feminists and a bunch of the same sort of bigots that murdered Martin Luther King, run around with sheets on and burn crosses, and get their news from FOX (where, last Friday, one morning show host compared his purchasing a pet monkey to adopting a black child!). Be our guest, stand up proudly and let everyone know what a complete bigot and generally thoughtless doogus you are. Vote for McCain or stay home, WE DON'T NEED YOU TO WIN.
****************************************
This arrogant drivel & utter disrespect is why I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. His supporters don't think they need me? Fine. I will vote for McCain & you can whine over your wine for the next 4 years!
PS I am boycotting all Oregon products, since you don't seem to need my MA millions.

Posted by: MJ | May 21, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

None of the news sources I have seen addresses a key metric of the exit polling data: what percentage of non-college educated white voters actually vote in the Democratic Primaries in WV, OH and PA? If non-college educated white voters constitute 40% of the electorate in those states and 75% of those are Republicans, can any conclussion about the General Election really be drawn from the exit poll of Democratic Primary voters?

Posted by: AZBob | May 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"Putting aside which candidate you support, should the results of Kentucky (and West Virginia) be of concern to Democrats looking to win back the White House in November? Why or why not?"

IMHO, earning the priviledge of sitting in the Executive Office is important, but what has been said by the people identified in the media as residents of both states and their reason for not voting for a particular candidate should be a concern to all Americans. And this includes the other communities that has sidelined and voiceless. Maybe by choice.
It could be the black and white communities believe that we are the only members invested enough in this nation that the others opinons and voices are not needed.

It's just strange to read that the only opinions that seems to matter or have greater importance excludes our nation's other citizens. Are they in the back of the bus?

Posted by: Mas | May 21, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the only reason Hillary is losing. We voters know her so well. And we can always count on her to show us that side of her we find so distasteful.

Posted by: svbreeder | May 21, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous at 12:35 PM said
"The military NEEDS YOU if they are going to sustain their current numbers in Iraq! They are having major problems! Record suicide rates combined with declining enlistment."

This is typical of the pathology of those who refer to themselves as the "reality based" community. They base their effusions on a reality that exists only in their own delusional musings. "Record suicide rates" do exist in the Army, but they are well below the suicide rate of civilians in the same age group, and in fact so infinitesimal as to have zero impact on re-enlistment rates. "Declining enlistment" is quite simply counterfactual. All branches of the service are over-fulfilling their recruitment quotas. The awful truth that confronts Anonymous and his/her/its confederates is that the Petraeus-Odierno team is winning the war in Iraq, and "AQ in Mesopotamia" is making its desperate last stand in Mosul. Face it, Anonymous. Your hopes for a disgraceful defeat in Iraq have gone glimmering.

Posted by: jayvan24 | May 21, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

FlaLady - AH, you have put your finger on it! Indeed, most of Cltinon's support comes from those "Hillbillies, aging feminists, blue-collar workers, etc.'. The problem for you is the rest of us are not ignorant fools, we read, we understand history, and those hillbillies and blue collar crackers NEVER vote Democrat in the general eletion. The last time a majority of them voted Democratic in a general election was 1964!!! So, Hillary's "support" amounts to a few aged shrill angry old feminists and a bunch of the same sort of bigots that murdered Martin Luther King, run around with sheets on and burn crosses, and get their news from FOX (where, last Friday, one morning show host compared his purchasing a pet monkey to adopting a black child!). Be our guest, stand up proudly and let everyone know what a complete bigot and generally thoughtless doogus you are. Vote for McCain or stay home, WE DON'T NEED YOU TO WIN.
I live in Oregon. We are not left wing nuts and will not be portrayed as such by some dimwitted Floridian feminist. We elect moderates, Republican's and Democrats. Most Oregon households own guns and shoot, trap and target shooting is the fourth most popular sport here. At the same time, our rate of homocides, of violent crome, is in the bottom 10% nationally. Unlike Floridian's, we don't think of shooting people as some sort of pastime. We respect individuals rights to make decisions for themselves. So we passed our Death With Dignity Law that allows individuals to end their lives, after medical review. We allow parents to home school their children but require minimal academic standards and testing. We have an active referendum sysrtem, which means we commonly undo garbage done by our elected representatives....especially law increases where public employees receive pay and benefit increases that are far beyond what the private sector receives. The average Oregonian is well read, active, and has a sense of humour. Open racism, even amoungst those Eastern Oregon Republican's, is almost unheard of. A black family can vacation almost anywhere in this state and not feel threatened, can move to any community and have themselves and their children received with genuine warmth and affection. Same for Native American's, Hispanics, Asians, anyone.

As for Florida and your lame brained majority vote claims - the ONLY way you twits get Clinton having won the majority of the popular vote is by not counting any votes for Obama in Michigan, where he wasn't even on the ballot (but, Clinton wasn't supposed to be on it either) and by a slight of hand where you don't even count his popular votes in Florida. You people are so dishonest, so unrepresentative, so transparently bankrupt of morals and decency, that it is a surprise to everyone that you can live with yourselves. Go blather elsewhere, go peddle your lies and utter crap to the hillbillies. Better yet, go take up residence with those hillbillie's you crow about supporting you and your foolishness. One thing, stay the h*ll away from Oregon.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I am a former Barack enthusiast who is now supporting Hillary. I did not make the switch lightly, as I believed that an African-American president would symbolize the vision that many of us have for a truly democratic and egalitarian America. However, I have become disaffected as I observed behaviors that were inconsistent with his grand declarations and exhortations. His petulant reaction to questioning, his misrepresentation of his opponent's positions, his use of mockery in stump speeches to diminish Hillary, together with his weaknesses in moving beyond identification of issues to carefully considered solutions have been disappointing. Most of all I have been dissuaded by the impression he and his supporters convey, with encouragement of the press (e.g., the NYT), that he is the anointed one, that it is "his time." This sense of entitlement is obnoxious. In contrast, I have found reassuring Hillary's forthrightness, her mental agility, her populist positions fortified by well conceived proposals for solutions to pressing issues. Especially in these times of economic insecurity, her positive energy, determination, and resilience are great examples for us all. In fact, I have found myself using her as a model in efforts to motivate my sons, granddaughters, and young friends as they cope with disappointments, setbacks, and uncertainty.

It is her sense of optimism, confidence, competence, and ability to connect with all of humanity, that inspire me to support Hillary. My support would be as strong were she male or of another color. By the way, some of Barack's followers whose comments are disparaging of Hillary's supporters for being "less educated" and "ignorant" should be reminded that education and wisdom are not synonymous. I am a retired college professor who is the product of three Ivy League schools. I can assure you that any wisdom I possess did not come from book learning but from dealing with adversity, my own and that of others. Enough of this elitism and sense of entitlement! Instead of mocking the people of Appalachia, you would be well advised to learn about and reflect on their lasting contributions to the history and culture of this country.

Posted by: Emjay | May 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, now that the race is for all intents and purposes over, and Hillary has lost, I will now support Barack Obama in November.

NOT!!!!!!!!!

The Democrats have rejected Hillary Clinton. Now as a Hillary supporter, it is time for me to reject the Democratic nominee in Barack Obama. Yes, I am pissed off, and I, along with many other Hillary supporters will make our anger quite known come election day. I hate John Mc.Cain with a psssion, but I hate the Democratic party even more because of the smear job Obama supporters and the lame stream media did to her. My vote in November goes to Mc.Cain.

Posted by: Gary | May 21, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Juggernaut? This is not an apt decrpition for a candidate that lost Texas, West Virgina, Kentucky, Indiana in just the last few weeks. The media characterization that the whites in the Rust Belt are all racist because they don't vote for Obama are insulting to say the least. HRC I think is the better more experienced candiate. The reverse must also be true that all the African Americans voting for Obama and Against Clinton are Racist. Right? If one is true the reverse is also true? Secondly, not all the people voting for Clinton are poor and not college graduates. I am not poor by any strech and I am a college graduate. I am not racist. She is the better more experienced candidate. Obama has been a Senator for four years and has spent three of thoses years running for Prisident. I wouldn't hire a plumber with three years experience. His tax policies are a mish mosh. Lower taxes on the poor but raise Social Security on the same group. Oh yeah if you live in NY City nad make over 75 thousand your according to Obama are wealthy? Ha? Wake up fools he doesn't stand a chance of winning the general election. He lost many of the States becasue he is the weaker candidate and the press loves to bash HRC an many men don't want a women in a position of power. It is our countries loss and our enimies gains that she MIGHT NOT get the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

in re: to hold that tiger "McCain gets elected: America continues being "America,World Policeman", Obama gets elected we get an "America-Firster" into office.

"Change is coming to America!"--Senator Barack Obama"

Dude, if you think Obama is going to be able to exercise that type of restaint with re: to foriegn diplomacy, YOU better stop drinking the Obama Democratic kool-aid.

Posted by: striker | May 21, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

In re: to blert "In terms of raw numbers, Obama still received more votes in Kentucky than McCain did (app. 210,000 to 142,000). Granted, the Republican race probably isn't drawing much interest at this point, but the fact that McCain once again was able to earn only 72% of the Republican vote shows cracks in his base, too."

Several things to keep in mind, one of which you have pointed out. The GOP did not trun out to vote becasue it was a foregone conclusion as to who the winner was going to be. Secondly most of the voters are working class who have jobs and don't have the time, or make the time, to vote till the general.

On a side note, I keep seeing people quote figures from various government sources. Why would you do that? These are the same government agencies you want to "change" run by the administartion that you loathe? Could it be that the numbers you selected just happened to support the view you wnat the rest of us to "see"?

Posted by: striker | May 21, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama should worry about the Appalachian states. If he is sincere about being a unifier and improving the lot of citizens who face economic hardships despite their own best efforts, then as an aspirant to the presidency he should be making honest attempts to observe their plight first hand and to listen to their concerns and hopes. It shouldn't be just about whether the states will yield votes in return for his efforts. Unless the Democratic Party is willing to give up its inclusive, populist banner, it should nominate a candidate who truly empathizes with and tries to relate to the people who face socioeconomic challenges daily and for whom opportunities and hope are eroding. TV ads and playing pool will not cut it; walking among and sincerely engaging with the people is what the nominee needs to do.

Also on the issue of inclusiveness, how hypocritical of Obama to campaign in MI and FLA as the self-anointed nominee, while refusing to support counting of their primary votes or holding new primaries. While he is in FLA today, Hillary is there to stand with citizens who are demanding that their primary votes be counted. First things first! Primary votes before electoral votes!

Posted by: MJS | May 21, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Can somebody please tell me why the media and the Democratic Party are working so hard to stop Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: Iamwonderingaboutthis | May 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

BadgerOne:
"How many modern-day Hitlers would Obama empower? John McCain is no Neville Chamberlain. People like How many modern-day Hitlers would Obama empower? John McCain is no Neville Chamberlain. People like Ahmadinejad will never be strengthened by a McCain presidency. An Obama presidency would be a boon to tyrants and terrorists and a disaster for fledgling democracies. will never be strengthened by a McCain presidency. "
=============
Can you really be this clueless? For one thing Ahmadinejad is a titular head of Iran Only, the real power lies with Iran's Islamic hierarchy: the Ayatollahs. McCain, why confronted with this fact, DENIED it...is he really that dumb or has he already started to play the Alzeheimer's Card. Further Obama is not going to appease (or bribe by giving away Land, etc,) ala Neville Chamberlin...dude you need to seriously lay off the Republican talking points kool-aid. McCain gets elected: America continues being "America,World Policeman", Obama gets elected we get an "America-Firster" into office.

"Change is coming to America!"--Senator Barack Obama

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 21, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

In 2006 we in Massachusetts elected a new Gov. His campaign was run or at least advised by David Axelrod. His campaign slogans were "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" and
"YES WE CAN". Sound familiar? He was supported by the Kennedy and Kerry machines as the new best thing. One of the first changes Gov. Patrick did was trade in the Ford for a Caddy Esclade. Like the state could aford it! His answer to the economic problems of the state is to push to allow 3 casinos. He has been absent from his job, which MA taxpayers pay for, for 15 months while he campaigns for Obama and then anounces that he wants to just work part time so he can write a book. In the MA 2008 primary for Pres. the Kennedy and Kerry machines went to work again to get out the vote for Obama, they lost by over 15 points. Why, you ask? Because MA, far from being racist since they voted in Patrick, decided that they were not going to be bamboozled again by fancy rhetoric and promises that were empty. Maybe all those "uneducated, low income hicks" are a lot smarter than anyone is giving them credit for and can see through the facade for what is really is, a very good marketing campaign for the new 'have to have' thing and when you open the box it does not hold up to all the hype.

Posted by: Mytake | May 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I realize that I am posting to a pro-Obama website, but here goes. Obama, like his rabid supporters, have disrespected too many Democratic demographics to win in the General Election. 'Hillbillies, aging feminists, blue-collar workers, etc.' have been nearly HALF of all votes cast in this Democratic primary. Many are moderate Democrats, not far-left like Oregon, etc. and do not like Obama's stand, if he actually has one, on many issues. They also don't think his, and his friends', actions match Obama's rhetoric. Talk about divisive! (I wish he would look up how to properly pronounce that word, too! It's so annoying.) Meanwhile, he has started his 'nice' act to Clinton in order to begin wooing her supporters. Forget it! Too many negatives for you, Obama, and anyway if you suppress my vote now as a Floridian, you sure as heck won't get it in the fall! MANY will not vote for Obama in the General Election. I am sure we will all be labeled RACIST as that is indicative of Obama's creed. For the record, I am supposed to be one of his 'educated, upper income' supporters. HA! You don't have to have an advanced college degree to see through this phoney!

Posted by: FlaLady | May 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

BTW, anybody notice how the DNC is doing everything it can to sqaush the Clintons? (including voter disenfranchisement of FL and MI).

Now heres my theory...since all politicians are in it for power and 'helping' their friends... the Obama camp has been making a lot of promises to help out friends (get richer) if they throw their support behind him. The DNC sees Obama as controllable since he is so new.

whereas the Clintons represent old money and old friends who would benefit.

so the DNC support behind Obama is an attempt at seizing new power for new 'friends'.

i don't like it and i don't trust these deals being made for 'new power'.

these folks are even willing to screw over millions of voters in FL and MI to get a hold of power and make themselves and their friends richer through Obama.

DON'T VOTE OBAMA. Say NO to voter disenfranchisement.

Posted by: hmmmmm | May 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Hillary is a smart woman. She's obviously aware she is benefiting from the racism of these voters, yet does not denounce it. That says something to me.
=============
I couldn't agree more. Is it cynism that is stopping her from realizing the part that race played in her success in many of the States she did well in, or is it her gigantic ego? Either way, shame on her: Obama can't win with "hard working Americans. White Americans." shame, shame, shame Hillary. Bill Clinton "The First Black President?" or the First White Candidate to skillfully manipulate the majority of black folk who always vote for the democrats?
=============
"Yes it's a problem for Obama. Let's face it, 'working whites' determines our next President. They will not vote for him. They will either vote McCain or leave the spot empty. Obama would lose."
==============
My State is full of working whites, in fact, my state is almost all white. We went for Obama big time. Of course we rate higher on the education scale than WV and KY...
==============
"I am also wondering what the Jewish population is because they have a good reason to also not vote Obama."

and that "reason" would be?

Posted by: "Hold_That_Tiger | May 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

BTW, anybody notice how the DNC is doing everything it can to sqaush the Clintons? (including voter disenfranchisement of FL and MI).

Now heres my theory...since all politicians are in it for power and 'helping' their friends... the Obama camp has been making a lot of promises to help out friends (get richer) if they throw their support behind him. The DNC sees Obama as controllable since he is so new.

whereas the Clintons represent old money and old friends who would benefit.

so the DNC support behind Obama is an attempt at seizing new power for new 'friends'.

i don't like it and i don't trust these deals being made for 'new power'.

these folks are even willing to screw over millions of voters in FL and MI to get a hold of power and make themselves and their friends richer through Obama.

DON'T VOTE OBAMA. Say NO to voter disenfranchisement.

Posted by: hmmmmmm | May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

BTW, anybody notice how the DNC is doing everything it can to sqaush the Clintons? (including voter disenfranchisement of FL and MI).

Now heres my theory...since all politicians are in it for power and 'helping' their friends... the Obama camp has been making a lot of promises to help out friends (get richer) if they throw their support behind him. The DNC sees Obama as controllable since he is so new.

whereas the Clintons represent old money and old friends who would benefit.

so the DNC support behind Obama is an attempt at seizing new power for new 'friends'.

i don't like it and i don't trust these deals being made for 'new power'.

these folks are even willing to screw over millions of voters in FL and MI to get a hold of power and make themselves and their friends richer through Obama.

DON'T VOTE OBAMA. Say NO to voter disenfranchisement.

Posted by: hmmmmmm | May 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is Neville Chamberlain 70 years later. They say history repeats itself and if Obama is elected it will. Look at the parallels between Chamberlain and Obama.

Chamberlain was prime minister of Britain when he watched as Hitler took over Austria. Then he agreed to let Hitler take over the Sudetenland section of Czechoslavakia. Then Chamberlain, after meeting with Hitler and signing a peace agreement him in Munich, saw Hitler ignore the agreement and take over all of Czechoslavakia. Then Chamberlain watched Hitler take over Poland, after telling everyone that Hitler could be trusted. The Polish lost 6 million people.

The modern day Hitlers love Barack Obama and how he will allow them to grow in strength all while assuring Obama what men of peace they are. Kuwait would now be in Saddam Hussein's hands if Obama had been president when Iraq invaded Kuwait. And Hussein would now have the power and atomic bombs he openly said he would use against the United States.

Chamberlain refused to join in the German assassination plot against Hitler before Hitler invaded Austria. If he had not been someone like Obama who believes in meeting with and empowering madmen we would not have had WWII in Europe and the loss of tens of millions of soldiers and tens of millions of citizens. Not to mention the extermination of over 5 million Jews by Adolph "Ahmadinejad" Hitler.

How many modern-day Hitlers would Obama empower? John McCain is no Neville Chamberlain. People like Ahmadinejad will never be strengthened by a McCain presidency. An Obama presidency would be a boon to tyrants and terrorists and a disaster for fledgling democracies.

Posted by: BadgerOne | May 21, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

All of this intellectual diddling pre-supposes that McCoot has a strong Political Imperative on which to build in the General. He is twined to Bush (voted 95% the Bush agenda in the Senate); he has a faulty "plan" for Health Care that depends on the "free Market" and deregulation to bring down costs: a plan in which he shifts the responsibilty of buying Health Insurance from the employer to the Individual which is probably good for some employers, and some young and healthy Americans, but, in reality, this "plan" will screw the old and those with pre-existing condition.

McGeezer admits that he isn't good on the economy, and boy doesn't his "Economic Plan" depending yet again on big tax cuts to the rich and Big Business prove it; many economists make the case that the McCain plan will dig us into a deeper hole.

Then there is the "Green" McCain that is sure to rile some Conservatives, and will fail to convince most who care about Global Warming as McCain certainly hasn't "voted Green" while in the Senate.

Finally there is the Flip-Flop McCain take on Iraq; first he implied that we may have permanent bases there for up to a hundred years, now he promises that we will be out in 4 years after a magical "Victory" is achieved? WTF?

Ultimately, it seems to me, that McSame's real Political Capital is his POW status that is almost 40 years in the past, and his undeniable Whiteness...will this REALLY be enough to pull him ahead of Obama?

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 21, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I would rather live in "Moron Country" headed by McCain than "GD America" administration.


Posted by: Moron Country | May 21, 2008 12:20 PM

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

The military NEEDS YOU if they are going to sustain their current numbers in Iraq! They are having major problems! Record suicide rates combined with declining enlistment.

Don't worry...you probably qualify! They don't care if you never graduated from H.S....no GED required!
If you have a couple felons...no problem...you can STILL sign up!
Getting on in years?...they will take you up to age 43 now.
But even if you don't all rush to enlist...don't worry! You will get your chance. If McSame gets voted in ...the draft will soon follow. After all...we can't start a war in Iran without more troops............

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's be honest, shall we? The "very white working class" - an odd description - of these "Rust Belt" areas is simply racist America. Why can't we call it what it is?

How will Obama secure more votes in this demographic? He can't. When 1 out of 5 voters in the region are racist enough to admit that that influenced their vote, it will take five generations - not five months - to reverse that thought. I can only imagine how many more voters were ashamed to admit that race was a factor in their vote....2 of 5?....3 of 5?

Meanwhile, Hillary is a smart woman. She's obviously aware she is benefiting from the racism of these voters, yet does not denounce it. That says something to me.

Hopefully, this democratic race will focus attention on these areas of the country that, in my opinion, hold racist attitudes that reflects poorly on the entire nation.

Posted by: FrankB | May 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is in trouble. He can not win the general election. Vote smart. Vote for victory. Vote for Senator Hillary clinton.

Posted by: maria | May 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes it's a problem for Obama. Let's face it, 'working whites' determines our next President. They will not vote for him. They will either vote McCain or leave the spot empty. Obama would lose.

I am also wondering what the Jewish population is because they have a good reason to also not vote Obama.

And of course the Hispanics won't vote Obama either. Aren't they 30% of the vote versus the 12% black vote?

Posted by: hmmmmm | May 21, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

A couple of odd things about those "white working class voters" - no Democratic candidate has won them in the general election since 1964. These *ARE* the Reagan Democrats. They are socially and every other way conservative and, although no one will say it, they are en mass racist bigots. In a general election, Ms. Clinton would have zero chance of winning their vote. In the runup to the primary, Clinton played on their racism and, with the Republican race being a boring certainty, the came out for her. Same thing in my native Oregon. If you take a look at the Clinton voters, roughly half of them were Eastern Oregon Republican's. These voters have no intention of voting for either Democrat in the general election. They voted for Clinton for a variety of reasons - racism, mischief making, just plain boredom. I think that Chris and other media pundits have purposefully underestimated this. Cltinon's actual level of support has been grossly over estimated.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TheGigaShadow | May 21, 2008 11:53 AM

"Any Clinton supporter who votes McCain instead of Obama is a first class moron. It doesn't get any simpler than that."

I would rather live in "Moron Country" headed by McCain than "GD America" administration.


Posted by: Moron Country | May 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Look folks Obam has been put in the winners position Largely (not completly or in all cases, but LARGELY) by the Afro-American vote in many states."
Obama's largest % victory, larger either than his win in DC, was in Utah. Utah is the whitest state in the Union.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 21, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

But heck if the 75% O support numbers are coming from an O worhshipper it must be true and those folks in my pct. (who primarily have post graduate degrees and aver annual incomes over $200,000) are just incorrect.

Brian it really interesting that you and O supporters here know exactly how HC supporters will be voting in Nov. Our pct caucus will be having 2 other meetings before and after the convention to calmly discuss what we will be doing in Nov. I would invite you to join us but I rather doubt you will like what you hear, but certainly you can come and lecture us and tell us what you feel you are entiled to. That should go over big.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

McCain 4 years ago:

Bush's tax cuts - he said they are irresponsible & he can't in good conscience vote for them because they help the richest 10% more than the middle-class

Military & veterans - strong support in all areas

Influence of the Affluent & Big business (lobbyists) in Washington politics - worked to Decrease it through a Bill co-authored with Sen. Obama (didn't know that, did you?)

Ethics in Politics - Insisted that 'strait-talk' about issues & not attacking your opponent was the way to run a campaign


McSame...oops, I mean McCain Now:

Bush's tax cuts - going to make them permanent (huh? what happened to your conscience?)

Military - rather than focus on the biggest hotbed of the Al-Qaeda (which is in Afganistan), he wants to keep us in the Iraq War (even though recent Pentagon reports say we are doing more harm than good there) And this in spite of the fact that our troops are exhausted & overstretched with record suicide rates and decreased enrollments in the Military. With his plan, he would have to enact a DRAFT to keep (or increase, as he proposes, our troop levels). PLUS, he has repeatedly stated that he believes we need to start a conflict with Iran, even though we can't sustain the two major conflicts we are already in. I don't care about the Beach Boys joke...I just don't think MORE conflict is an option right now.

Veterans - he loves to talk & joke with the Vietnam vets, yet won't support the new GI Bill because it would make 'getting out' of the military 'too appealing'!?! (So basically he want them you stay in till you get killed?)

Influence of affluent & Big business (lobbyists) in Washington politics - he is under investigation by the FEC for illegal campaign contributions and MORE FRIGHTENING (!) he has received the largest percentage of campaign funds from ...yeah, you guessed it...LOBBYISTS & BIG BUSINESSES.

Ethics in Politics - Since 'strait-talk' about issues important to McCain aren't popular, lets attack the other candidates

Sigh...I liked the old McCain better. But I have to admit, 4 years ago I wasn't concerned about the economy...but now we are in trouble everywhere you look. And, unfortunately, that is the ONE area he has consistently said he knows nothing about.

I was raised Republican...but this year I'm a cross-over vote for WHOEVER wins the Democrats Nomination. I just can't stomach another 4 years of Failed Bush Policies.

I have seen people SAY that McCain is a Maverick...but his ACTIONS put him FIRMLY with the current administration's policies as his voting record shows he supported Bush 95% of the time in the last 7 years...that's higher than ANY OTHER SENATOR.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Appalachia and, more importantly, the Rust Belt are a struggle for Obama. However, Hillary isn't helping AT ALL. She cannot overcome the math with the delegates, and should support Obama and Democratic party. Instead, she's campaigning hard to those who know her BRAND well. These people are brand-loyal: it takes TIME for them to realize that another brand is going to serve them well. Hillary is not allowing Obama the time and clear space to win over those voters. The longer she stays in the race, the less time Obama has to win over these uncertain voters.

But Obama CAN win them over. He's demonstrated this time and time again. He simply needs a clear path.

Hillary is blocking his path -- and the Democrats path.

Posted by: scj, anytown, usa | May 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Um,
Obama will have problems winning any demographic sliver that he did no win in the primaries.
McCain, OTOH, will not have any problems winning the groups which he lost in the primaries. (And he lost fundies and got single digits in Utah.)
Is that based on a subtle analysis that I have missed? Or is it the media whistling in the dark trying to make November into a horse race?

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Thoughtful people have been wondering about this for a while. The problem is this: the Rust Belt states aren't monolithic... take MI for example. Outstate is solidly Republican, Wayne County is solidly Democratic, and the swing county in the whole state is Macomb.

I grew up in Metro Detroit, and I don't see how Obama can carry Macomb County, which has been described as a little piece of Appalachia in metro Detroit.

If Obama gets buried in Scranton-Wilkes Barre and in the exurbs of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, he can't get enough votes from the urban centers to make it up.

He has a huge and growing problem in those areas in MI and PA, which can be ameliorated by bad economic fundamentals and a downturn in Iraq, but fundamentally he's fighting a battle from behind.

Here's the problem, barring a tsunami in November, which is not out of the question, I don't see how he can win the EC. Ask yourself this, if 1 in 10 voters who would otherwise vote Democratic this year vote for McCain because of Obama's skin tone (he can make just as solid a case for being a white American as he can for being an African American) he has to take 55% of the rest of the swing voters just to stay even.

Making noise about changing the battlefield by contesting the Dakotas, Kansas and Nebraska doesn't change the fundamentals. I'll vote for him regardless, but in part because my vote is of little consequence, he won't carry ND or SD at any rate.

Another point which will affect the outcome is that he has gotten absolutely hammered under the radar on everything from his middle name to his father being Muslim to his wife's ill-advised comment about her love of the country. People who are paying attention dismiss it, but probably half of America will vote without paying but scant attention to the details. If they are mildly racially motivated things like the email slander campaigns will give them a place to hang their hat in voting against Obama.

Is it fair? not really, but it killed Kerry in 2004, and it ain't helping this time for Obama.

Posted by: leuchtman | May 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

This will be something for the Obama campaign to concentrate on this summer. They are great at bottom up operations. They should focus their organizing efforts at appealing to Hillary's base to get as many as possible of them to support Obama.

That said, McCain is wedded to the most unpopular president in history. Every stumbling effort he makes to distance himself from that president only makes his Right wing base hate him more. He's also wedded to a vastly unpopular war. He also represents the party in power during an election year recession that most folks think his party's policies caused...and he has stated that he doesn't know economics that well. Plus he has flip flopped more than your average tumbling team.

Really the only things he has going for him are his status as a war hero (ask Bob Dole just how helpful that was) and the fact that some folks just aren't ready for an African American president. I expect to be going to bed early on election night because we are a better country than that.

Posted by: Bill | May 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

talk about an elitist comment:

"Once Clinton bites the bullet and withdraws, she'll tell her supporters to vote for Obama and 75 percent of them will obey. That'll be enough.

"Besides, since when was it a good thing to win poor uneducated people"

huh is that what your campaign is feeding you that only college graduates should be allowed to vote in Nov?


and you arrogantly tell us that 75% of us will be supporting O b/c you tell us to. Sorry we don't take our marching orders from you sir, maybe you act that way towards your parents, doesn't work in my family. Actually of the 82 members of my pct. caucus that met last week in my home, its far closer to 75% who have said they will never vote for Sen O. But heck if the 75% O support numbers are coming from an O worhshipper it must be true and those folks in my pct. (who primarily have post graduate degrees and aver annual incomes over $200,000)

One of those pct caucus members who told me they would be voting for O called me last night after the Ky results and said oh my gosh what has the D party gotten us into again. And that from someone willing to cross over in Nov.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Could Hillary win if she ran as a 3rd party candidate?

Posted by: Raj Sharma | May 21, 2008 11:56 AM
+++++++++

No, all she could do is split the vote guaranteeing Mccain a win.

Posted by: | May 21, 2008 12:02 PM
+++++++++

And thereby prove that this race was always about Hillary Clinton...not the needs of anyone else who might be living in this country.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

No, all she could do is split the vote guaranteeing Mccain a win.
+++++++++
Could Hillary win if she ran as a 3rd party candidate?

Posted by: Raj Sharma | May 21, 2008 11:56 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Could Hillary win if she ran as a 3rd party candidate?

Posted by: Raj Sharma | May 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

The Venn Diagram of this election is a really colorful compilation of Hillarys,Obamas, McCains, their antis, generic Dems, Generic repubs, and others. It is the others that have always been the key to elections, and Obama seems to have motivated them in amazing numbers. In the early rounds, before Obama became fully credible, Hillary carried the Black vote in reasonable pluralities. Once it became apparent that Obama was for real, the Black vote reasonably gravitated to him, not repudiating the Clintons, but affirming Obama. No poll so far has tried to quantify the effects of the campaigns on the great untapped voting bloc, the no shows.

It looks like THEY are Obama's biggest particular asset. Obviously, if Obama can drag a fifth of the normal non voters to the polls, he should easily offset the small rump of "Democrats" who won't vote for anybody but Clinton.

Since either Hillary or Barack will be running the next administration using the same pool of Democrats to fill all the thousand or so appointments that a President makes to set up his administration, and since either will have a working relationship with a heavily Democratic Congress, the nuances of either's platforms are useful for the connoisseur, the pastiche that Congress makes of either's platform will be much more Big Mac than, say, Chicago pate de foi gras. Most Democrats will vote for either. It looks like most independents will too. It is the returning disaffecteds that will make a small landslide into some kind of continental uplift.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | May 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

In regard to what atomic said below:

"Most Clinton supporters will either vote for McCain or not vote at all"

Any Clinton supporter who votes McCain instead of Obama is a first class moron. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Posted by: TheGigaShadow | May 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

What a lot of the pundits and posters aren't grasping is that "Obama" is getting disenfranchised new voters registered ( at a good clip I might add),look at his financing organization (imagine how he could do as the Prez), the paradigm is shifting. A lot of the "old" style politics is going the way of the dinosaur.This is going to be a new "metric", that we will see once he is the nominee. The "old" school is going to be dead, but won't go down without a lot of kicking and screaming, aka "hillary RODHAM clinon". Is he the greatest thing since the wheel, no, but he is changing the way things are done, and that can't be a bad thing,hell even the Israelis are talking to "Tehran", oh my god, why aren't they called appeasers? Time to get on board or move on.....

Posted by: Notanimrod | May 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

What happened in the senatorial primary in Oregon?

Posted by: Ryan | May 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

To all people of all colors who turn to Islam out of hatered to the "White" Western Culture.
East African Islamic roots Rooted in Slave trade.

Islamic influence in Kenya was driven by Slave trade.


In the centuries preceding colonization, the Swahili coast of Kenya was part of the east African region which traded with the Arab world and India especially for ivory and slaves (the Ameru tribe is said to have originated from slaves escaping from Arab lands some time around the year 1700.). Initially these traders came mainly from Arab states, but later many also came from Zanzibar (such as Tippu Tip).
Swahili, a Bantu language with many Arabic, Persian and other Middle Eastern and South Asian loan words, developed as a lingua franca for trade between the different peoples.

Omani Arab colonization of the Kenyan and Tanzanian coasts brought the once independent city-states under closer foreign scrutiny and domination than was experienced during the Portuguese period. Like their predecessors, the Omani Arabs were primarily able only to control the coastal areas, not the interior. However, the creation of clove plantations, intensification of the slave trade and relocation of the Omani capital to Zanzibar in 1839 by Seyyid Said had the effect of consolidating the Omani power in the region. Arab governance of all the major ports along the East African coast continued until British interests aimed particularly at ending the slave trade and creation of a wage-labour system began to put pressure on Omani rule. By the late nineteenth century, the slave trade on the open seas had been completely outlawed by the British and the Omani Arabs had little ability to resist the Royal Navy's ability to enforce the directive. The Omani presence continued in Zanzibar and Pemba until the 1964 revolution, but the official Omani Arab presence in Kenya was checked by German and British seizure of key ports and creation of crucial trade alliances with influential local leaders in the 1880s. However, the Omani Arab legacy in East Africa is currently found through their numerous descendants found along the coast that can directly trace ancestry to Oman and are typically the wealthiest and most politically influential members of the Kenyan coastal community.

Posted by: allblues | May 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama can do just so much.... until minds and hearts are changed, attitudes will remain fixed on old attitudes and prejudices in pockets of the U.S.

While some people seek out and welcome change, others resist change, viewing it with alarm, preferring to cling to the known no matter how poorly they are served by the status quo.

The saddest part of this campaign season is how Hillary has used this fear and distrust to further her ambitions.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Difficult to dignify the brazen and juvenile attack by "Playa" below, for even Barack Obama commends his service to this country since he was 17. On the general theme of this post, Obama's problem with the white working class vote is cause for concern. It has trended Republican since Nixon's victory in 1968, and will surely lean toward McCain this time around. Dems lost this demo by only 10% in 2006 when they recaptured Congress, but Kerry lost it by 23% to Bush in '04. Hard to see Obama doing better than this seeing that Clinton isn't likely their first choice either. Hard to see what red states Obama will turn blue, and with PA, NJ, MI, WI, and MN in play, McCain may be on the verge on an Electoral College landslide.

Posted by: buckybacker97 | May 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse


Read each others comments!

There seems to be a lot of racial hostility from the "White" and "Black" commentators.
It is amazing after 50 years of racial progress driven by the Democratic party that "White" and "Black" DEMOCRATS could be so hostile to one another. Save it for the party of economic oppression the Republicans.

If you read the comments of others you will find much to offended by.

Not to stir things up more, but......

"White" voters have supported Obama particularly prior to Rev. Wright. Wright is clearly a racist hate demagogue. He and Obama's crisis management of him really scared many Afro-Americans and everybody else.

"Black" voters are not immune to racism.
Some Afro-Americans would argue THEY have reason to be. Some "Whites" actually sympathize with such arguments. "Blacks" voted about 10 to 1 for Obama.
There is a split of about 55% to 45% of "Whites" for Clinton and a split of about 90% to 10% of "Blacks" for Obama. The "White" vote is also split by gender due to Sexism. If you factor that out, (how?) one would find that the "White " communities support for Obama is even stronger.
The "Black" vote is hardly split ( by anything) .

All said , the point is that for all the screaming and yelling, the anger and hostility......
By the numbers in this contest , a much stronger case can be made for wide spread racism in the Afro-American community than in the "White" community. The vast majority of "White" voters have been color blind and supportive to both candidates. This cannot be said of the "Black" community.
What can be said ?

In Fact, by the numbers , in most of the large primaries , as long as Obama could count on the "Black" vote he only needed about 44% of the "non black" vote to win. He did this in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands. Where he built his media created "Momentum". If you don't believe this , crunch the numbers yourself. It is a fact no one wants to talk about.

Posted by: allblues | May 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Dear fellow commentators,

Read each others comments!

There seems to be a lot of racial hostility from the "White" and "Black" commentators.
It is amazing after 50 years of racial progress driven by the Democratic party that "White" and "Black" DEMOCRATS could be so hostile to one another. Save it for the party of economic oppression the Republicans.

If you read the comments of others you will find much to offended by.

Not to stir things up more, but......

"White" voters have supported Obama particularly prior to Rev. Wright. Wright is clearly a racist hate demagogue. He and Obama's crisis management of him really scared many Afro-Americans and everybody else.

"Black" voters are not immune to racism.
Some Afro-Americans would argue THEY have reason to be. Some "Whites" actually sympathize with such arguments. "Blacks" voted about 10 to 1 for Obama.
There is a split of about 55% to 45% of "Whites" for Clinton and a split of about 90% to 10% of "Blacks" for Obama. The "White" vote is also split by gender due to Sexism. If you factor that out, (how?) one would find that the "White " communities support for Obama is even stronger.
The "Black" vote is hardly split ( by anything) .

All said , the point is that for all the screaming and yelling, the anger and hostility......
By the numbers in this contest , a much stronger case can be made for wide spread racism in the Afro-American community than in the "White" community. The vast majority of "White" voters have been color blind and supportive to both candidates. This cannot be said of the "Black" community.
What can be said ?

In Fact, by the numbers , in most of the large primaries , as long as Obama could count on the "Black" vote he only needed about 44% of the "non black" vote to win. He did this in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands. Where he built his media created "Momentum". If you don't believe this , crunch the numbers yourself. It is a fact no one wants to talk about.

Posted by: allblues | May 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Dear fellow commentators,

Read each others comments!

There seems to be a lot of racial hostility from the "White" and "Black" commentators.
It is amazing after 50 years of racial progress driven by the Democratic party that "White" and "Black" DEMOCRATS could be so hostile to one another. Save it for the party of economic oppression the Republicans.

If you read the comments of others you will find much to offended by.

Not to stir things up more, but......

"White" voters have supported Obama particularly prior to Rev. Wright. Wright is clearly a racist hate demagogue. He and Obama's crisis management of him really scared many Afro-Americans and everybody else.

"Black" voters are not immune to racism.
Some Afro-Americans would argue THEY have reason to be. Some "Whites" actually sympathize with such arguments. "Blacks" voted about 10 to 1 for Obama.
There is a split of about 55% to 45% of "Whites" for Clinton and a split of about 90% to 10% of "Blacks" for Obama. The "White" vote is also split by gender due to Sexism. If you factor that out, (how?) one would find that the "White " communities support for Obama is even stronger.
The "Black" vote is hardly split ( by anything) .

All said , the point is that for all the screaming and yelling, the anger and hostility......
By the numbers in this contest , a much stronger case can be made for wide spread racism in the Afro-American community than in the "White" community. The vast majority of "White" voters have been color blind and supportive to both candidates. This cannot be said of the "Black" community.
What can be said ?

In Fact, by the numbers , in most of the large primaries , as long as Obama could count on the "Black" vote he only needed about 44% of the "non black" vote to win. He did this in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands. Where he built his media created "Momentum". If you don't believe this , crunch the numbers yourself. It is a fact no one wants to talk about.

Posted by: allblues | May 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

If McCain does win all those Democrats who will vote for McCain over Obama should be forced to wear a t-shirt " I voted for McCain"; as they walk through all the destitute areas of the country where the poor will be poorer,without jobs,health care,and hope.They should be forced to explain their pettiness to everybody who will suffer from four more years of a Bush presidency.They should have to justify why they abandoned a lifetime of principles to vote for Bush tax cuts,the Bush war in Iraq, and the Bush Supreme Court. What will they tell their grandchildren who will have clones of Alioto, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas filling the vacancies of the Supreme Court eviscerating the constitution, and eroding liberties. What a proud legacy to leave the next generation.

Posted by: Alan Mendelsohn | May 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

No, WVA and KY don't matter. There is no way that either of those states go blue in November regardless of the democratic nominate. Michigan, Pa and Ohio will be closer than they should be, but Senator Obama will win them.

Posted by: pj451 | May 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I would not assume that white votes to Hillary in the Rust belt won't go to Obama. I would not assume that Obama won't be able to paint blue some important States - and heavy in terms of electoral votes. Not just some western state, but even something in the South. The issue of turnout is and will be very important and Obama seems well organised on this. The polls tell us that he is behind by very small numbers in NC, SC, Va, OH, FL, Mi, Wi. He is behind today, after Wright, still fighting for the nomination and without a presidential campaign on the run. One point from McCain in Florida (where the arizona senator is strong and where Hillary is campaigning tough on the rules) is a sort of a miracle. Nontheless, Obama, Axelrod&Co. will have to create a bread&butter narrative. They are clever enough.

Posted by: tino | May 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Look folks Obam has been put in the winners position Largely (not completly or in all cases, but LARGELY) by the Afro-American vote in many states. This block is any where from 15% to 40% or more of the democratic primary voters. This group has voted 80 to 92 % for Obama.
That gives Obama aprox. 12% to 37% fixed lead at the start.
The White vote has largly been split aprox 55- 60%% to 40%-45 in Clintons favor
so Obama is largly unbeatable in many states. Particularly the states just after super tuesday.
USUALLY the Afro_American vote is split between white candidates as is the white vote. This is because issues or personalities drive the vote.

Virginia 02/12 Maryland 02/12 District of Columbia 02/12 Maine 02/10 Washington 02/09 Louisiana 02/09 Nebraska 02/09 Virgin Islands 02/09


Maryland - Democratic Exit Polls
Category (Percentage) Clinton Obama
Male (38%) 33% 62%
Female (62%) 41% 55%
No College Degree (43%) 36% 60%
College Graduate (57%) 40% 57%


White (53%) 52% 42*%
African Americans (37%) 15% 84%
Latinos 4% 55 45
Asian (3%) - -

So Obama gets 84% of the Afro-American vote (37% of total) which is is 31% of the total vote. So Obama only needed 19% more of the total vote for 50/50 break. That means Obama needed only 37.73 of the White vote to tie Clinton.
He got 42% of the White Vote and won. I do not recall the press calling foul or racism about the Afro-American monolithic vote.


Louisiana - Democratic Exit Polls
Category (Percentage) Clinton Obama
Male (40%) 33% 54%
Female (60%) 38% 58%
White (47%) 58% 30%
African Americans (48%) 13% 86%
Latinos (4%) - -
Asian (0%) - -
Other (0%) - -

Here Obama starts with 86% of the 48% AF vote. Obama has 41.28% of the toal vote and now needs 8.72 % more or 18% of the White vote to tie at 50/50.


Virginia - Democratic Exit Polls
Category (Percentage) Clinton Obama
White (61%) 47% 52%
African Americans (30%) 10% 90%
Latinos (5%) 46% 54%
Asian (2%) - -
Other (1%) - -


Here Obama starts with 27% of the vote by virtue of Ethnic Pride or something else. So all he needed was 37% of the White vote. Unbeatable.

DC , Washington , Virgin Islands Nebraska, Main no exit polls available

Posted by: allblues | May 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

a poll just came out today putting Obama +8 over McCain in Pennsylvania. I'm not worried.

Once Clinton bites the bullet and withdraws, she'll tell her supporters to vote for Obama and 75 percent of them will obey. That'll be enough.

Besides, since when was it a good thing to win poor uneducated people? I think it's okay to have an education, even though these "working-class white" voters seem to think education is elitist and un-American.

Posted by: Brian | May 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I meant to say the Democrats will come together in November once the Republicans are weeded out.

Posted by: Eddie | May 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Calling McCain a war hero is like calling David Duke a civil rights leader. McCain was an incopetent pilot who got shot down in Hanoi and spilled state secrets to stay alive. You think if he defied the Vietcong as he claims, they'd let him live? It's coming out now that McDaddy McSenile McDiaper McSame will say anything to anyone get his way.

Posted by: Playa | May 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"All Americans whether Black or White should be aware of just where did slavery originate and who sold their own people into slavery. Slavery in Africa was generated by tribal wars and had existed in Africa for cenruries before Sir John Hawkins, a British privateer, made the first British slavery trip to Africa in 1562. African slavery operated on a much more self-sustaining basis than ancient, or traditional, slavery. Slavery in Africa had a life of its own, a stand-alone operation that involved the brutal transoceanic transportation of their own people. Primarily the by-product of tribal wars--the spoils of war."
I think most people forget this. Being OLD and forgetting where I heard comments and who to attribute them too is becoming an art form. That said ... there was an economist who recently remarked that the reason we had black slaves when slavery was in vogue there - was that they were available. NOT because of their race.
There are those who argue that perhaps the move to give amenity to "illegals" so that we have a workforce to do the jobs we don't want to do (imagine that) is yet another "modern day" form of slavery.
I read, recently where the state of New York is planning on spending millions for a jobs program for high school students to help them find summer jobs ... yet are also crying for migrant workers to being in the harvest this year ... is it just me ... or do others see something very, very ominous about all this. I vaguely remember there was a time when people referred to "earning" a living ... or "this is what I "earned" last year, or per hour. Now it is "what I make" .... We "make" a living now, when we used to "earn" a living. Perhaps this is nothing more than semantics -- or perhaps this is a sad comment on what has become our work ethic.

Posted by: Dale | May 21, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, I think this should cause Obama and the Dems concern. Yes, there is a racial problem that EXTENDS to Appalachia from the deep south. Unfortunately, I fear that this latent racism (or overt in some cases) is a leftover of the civil rights movement and is part generational (I've been shocked at voters over 60 out here on the WEST COAST...I have talked to several that all had difficulties voting for a black man! even here and I don't get it!), part economic (competing for jobs) and educational. The residue from this fight lingers all across this country and I think Obama and our party need start strategically discussing this. This may be the "Third Rail" of American politics this election cycle. Many of the of the older voters I talk to...know better, but still have deep reservations. The only way to win over these voters is to engage them over time. This is the time for a "full court press" to break down the race issue over time. THESE VOTERS MUST BE ENGAGED BY US THE VOTERS NOT JUST THE CANDIDATES!!

Posted by: Frank | May 21, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

All Americans whether Black or White should be aware of just where did slavery originate and who sold their own people into slavery. Slavery in Africa was generated by tribal wars and had existed in Africa for cenruries before Sir John Hawkins, a British privateer, made the first British slavery trip to Africa in 1562. African slavery operated on a much more self-sustaining basis than ancient, or traditional, slavery. Slavery in Africa had a life of its own, a stand-alone operation that involved the brutal transoceanic transportation of their own people. Primarily the by-product of tribal wars--the spoils of war. Black African potentates not only had no scruples about selling their subjects to foreignors, but competed in man-stealing and waged tribal wars motivated by greed for vendible slaves. America has upgraded the life of African Americans more than their own coutry does today. Tribal wars continue in all African areas and I hear nothing from Rev. Wright or Obama about this. They are both hypocrites in condeming America for slavery and injustices to the blacks. America has done more to help them than anyone else. Trillions of taxpayers dollars has been spent on African Americans than any other race that ever came to America. All newcomers were discriminated when they first came to America. We all heard ad nauseam from the Reverend Al about Twana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena, and it all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing. Who does the liberal press bend over for to hide these true statistics? What will Obama really change?

Posted by: Race Relations | May 21, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

It always amazes me that in all these so-called National Polls that two simular polls taken at the same time never reflect the same statistic. Also in all my life and far travels in this country, I have never met or have taked to anyone that took any of such polls.. Makes me think that it is all made up like all this other crap being flunged out about who is ahead of who. In my opinion McCain is more likely to beat Obama, however McCain could not defeat Clinton. Novemeber 9th will tell. All America has to do is make up its mind who is the better qualified to lead America, a certified war hero with years of political expeience, or a freshman senator with very little political savy, or former First Lady and Senator with greater political understanding and national and forgien policy tenure than either of the former two mentioned.

Posted by: jeffrey lynn | May 21, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

mario | May 21, 2008 10:45 AM...wrote:

"Even when whites vote 75% for Clinton, blacks vote 91% for Obama.

Who is calling who racist?"
_________________________________________

Before blacks were for Obama they were for Hillary C. Venture a guess about what percentage of blacks voted for Bill Clinton and any democratic nominee (all white males as far as I remember!)?

A more appropriate comparision on your part might be the women vs black vote. Both are based on pride for their first-time standard bearer (not a totally good reason in my view).

Maybe you can ponder specifically & honestly why lower income and lower educated white voters in the rust belt and southern states would vote for Clinton (soon to be switched to McCain in the fall).


Posted by: Ohillary | May 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

So now Sen. Obama has to be concerned with "very white working class voters." I guess the regular old "hard working white voters" in Portland and Iowa are all locked up.

Posted by: Jim | May 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Applachia is not just an Obama problem but a problem that prior democrats have had. What makes you think that it is going to be different now. Go back in history and look at how the Democratic Party has done in this region of the country. Because Hillary won this time around, it does not guarantee a win in the general election.

Posted by: schicks | May 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Let'sd get to the real story. Of the last 30 national polls, McCain has been behind in 27. He has fallen further behind even while the Rev. wright and "bitter" stuff was going on and when he had the spotlight to himself. But The Fix is fixated on Democratic problems - which are simply theoretical. for heaven's sake, the incumbent Republican senator in Mississippi is BEHINd by 8 points and we get this same warmed over irrelevant stuff. I love the Fix, but man, you have to stop drinking Kool Aid and staring looking at what's really going on in thsi campaign. McCain lost 25% of the vote in uncontested primaries again yesterday and you are worried about mark penn's silly microtrends and missing the big picture.

Posted by: DHAJ | May 21, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

10:45 a.m. post

"Would anyone here find it convincing if I were to profess to know what the private conversations are between the Obama camp and uncommitted superdelegates? Do you think that if I had this kind of access, I would be in charge of The Fix, instead of manufacturing a load of racist tripe and posting it under various aliases?

No one believes in me? No wonder I have no credibility, and ran crying from here last night, like a beaten cur."

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 21, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

obama supporters and rabid anti-clinton pols & big media as expected, dismisses the big state and crucial state wins of clinton at the expense of the democratic party and the presidential elections.


this presidential contest is being delivered to the GOP/mccain on a silver platter. remember kerry? gore?

Posted by: mikel | May 21, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

The poster Eddie at 10:49 is a creation of the Obama campaign


There are so many democrats who are refusing to support Obama.

What the Obama campaign is doing today is PRETENDING that there are people willing to go the other way.


.

Posted by: Typical White Person | May 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

So he loses in KY & WV? Who cares?

He expands the electoral map.
Real Clear Politics shows him leading or tied with McCain in:

CO (won by Bush in 2004), NM (Bush), IA (Bush), PA (even with all those "white people"!)

Posted by: mbw | May 21, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

To whomever posted this comment, since you don't use a name: "Politics 101 Divide and Conquer"

Normally I ignore comments from those who display an intellect and depth of understanding equal to a peepot. However, since you insist that Obama is dividing to conquer, I must respond.

Look at the comments posted here. Most of those who argue for Obama attempt to do so with some factual basis.
Most of those arguing for Clinton do so with some spite and obvious personal preference.

I posted fact about elections since 1972...what is the response? Resounding silence.

Anger divides...personal opinion is worth about one sheet of toilet paper.

Truth unites.
Obama speaks of unity. Clinton speaks of voting blocs (i.e. divisions among us).
Obama speaks of one America. Clinton speaks of whites versus blacks, men versus women.

In truth, who is the real divider????

Posted by: easyenough | May 21, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats don't look at these statistics at their peril.

Barack Obama will most likely be the Democratic nominee but he needs to find a way to reach these Reagan Democrats or he will lose. Today's polling shows him 8% behind McCain while Mark Warner is way ahead in the Senate race. The Mississippi house race which the Democrat Childers won is a case in point on what many Democratic members members of the house in swing Districts in Ohio, PA, MS, and other states will do. They will disown Obama to enable them to win. Childers went out of his way to say he doesn't know Obama, wasn't endorsed by him and didn't endorse him.

We could see a huge win for Democrats in Congress and McCain win the Presidency.

We need to face the issue of racism and we need to face the issue of Obama's inexperience. Together these are isses that if we don't address directly we will lose. Obama has already made a number of naive remarks on foreign policy and specifically on Ahmadinejad and on Israel. He is in danger of losing the Jewish vote as well.

I am a passionate Clinton supporter but I will be a passionate Obama supporter if he gets the nomination. But I will counsel Obama and his supporters to look at these white voters in the rust belt and not make the mistake of comparing them to white voters in Oregon or Wisconsin. They are different voters with different backgrounds and concerns. Winning the White vote in Oregon means nothing if you lose it all in the Swing states. You need just a 1 vote victory in a state to win its electoral votes. Obama will not have the benefit he had in the primaries of splitting delegates even when he lost a state. Had Democrats had winner take all primaries like the Republicans Hillary Clinton would be the candidate. Let's not make the mistake of looking at national polls scewed to voters in big states and thnk they translate to all states.

It will be an interesting five months until November and let us hope as Democrats that all the October surprises are about McCain and that we don't have some more surprised concerning Obama that the press will discover now that they are vetting Obama. And Obama has to stop whining about Michelle Obama be off limits to Republicans and get her to stick to a script before she loses him the election.

Posted by: peter DC | May 21, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"Chris, you left out a key element from the exit polls in KY and WV: about 20 percent of voters in both states indicated race played a role in their decision."

Are you assuming that the 20% is entirely white? I would wager that is not the case. A bunch of Obama supporters have told me flat out that if a black candidate gets close, they will vote for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Sure, there is legitimate cause for *some* concern BUT

Those voters do not reliably vote Democratic anyway.

Posted by: MBW | May 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

'Why hasn't the media tried to find out how much the Clinton's paid Rev. Wright to interfere with the Primaries? You don't hear from him now. He is off enjoying himself.'
-----------------------
It's stupid remarks like this that are driving people away from Obama. He is the one who sat in Wright's Church, not Hillary. I will vote for him but keep it up, drive those who are on the fence away. You are a disgrace to Obama and are hurting him.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The same white voters that Hillary won in KY, WV, PA and OH primaries also were won by Gore and Kerry. When the general election rolled around 30% of those voters went for Bush. The Dems haven't won a majority of white votes in decades. Carter got 49% and Clinton got less than 40%.

Posted by: jill | May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I think in the end none of this matters. Whether we end up with Clinton or Obama as our nominee, there are very, very few Democrats that would even remotely consider voting for McCain, since he clearly represents more of Bush's intolerable policies that continue to make this country weaker. I'm a Clinton supporter, but if Obama is our nominee (and, at this point, I have to believe that Obama is our nominee) I will definitely be voting for him.

Posted by: Kay Decker | May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

All Americans whether Black or White should be aware of just where did slavery originate and who sold their own people into slavery. Slavery in Africa was generated by tribal wars and had existed in Africa for cenruries before Sir John Hawkins, a British privateer, made the first British slavery trip to Africa in 1562. African slavery operated on a much more self-sustaining basis than ancient, or traditional, slavery. Slavery in Africa had a life of its own, a stand-alone operation that involved the brutal transoceanic transportation of their own people. Primarily the by-product of tribal wars--the spoils of war. Black African potentates not only had no scruples about selling their subjects to foreignors, but competed in man-stealing and waged tribal wars motivated by greed for vendible slaves. America has upgraded the life of African Americans more than their own coutry does today. Tribal wars continue in all African areas and I hear nothing from Rev. Wright or Obama about this. They are both hypocrites in condeming America for slavery and injustices to the blacks. America has done more to help them than anyone else. Trillions of taxpayers dollars has been spent on African Americans than any other race that ever came to America. All newcomwers were discriminated when they first came to America. We all heard ad nauseam from the Reverend Al about Twana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena, and it all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing. Who does the liberal press bend over for to hide these true statistics? What will Obama really change?

Posted by: Race Relations | May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Were Hill not on the ballot, Obama would have fared far better. I think naysayers are overstating their case on this. He may not win those states in the general, but he will do much better as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: Soonerthought | May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I just don't understand why there is even a discussion about who votes for Barack vs. who votes for Hillary.
The past 7 1/2 years of Republican corruption and incompetence not just in D.C. but all over America, hopefully will be enough to bring the much needed change in this country.
I sure hope that when a Democratic nominee is finally chosen, the whole country will get behind that person regardless of who it is.
The United States will not survive another four years of Bush/McCain thinking without some sort of public uprising in the streets.

Posted by: Richard Daly | May 21, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Let's face these facts:

1) It's all about strategy...Obama didn't campaign in WV and KY because he could still get a majority of pledged del without them.

2) In states where he HAS campaigned (see Iowa and Wisconsin), he runs about even or only slightly trails Clinton among "working class whites"....and he WINS

THE POINT: When people actually get to know Obama, the more likely they are to vote for him.

KY and WV only show one thing: People who know him least are also least likely to vote for him.

Posted by: mBW | May 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Yes, it absolutely matters. People seem to have forgotten that the real goal of this exercise is not to elect a nominee but elect a president.

The reason this race continues and why Democrats have lost presidential election after election is the refusal to address the concerns of working class, swing voters. Clinton has won IN, PA, OH, WV, KY and so on because she addresses those concerns; Obama ignores them. Obama's coalition of well-off liberals and African-Americans always vote Democrat in the general election anyway. Obama counters that he gets the youth vote too. The fact is only sometimes. For example, Clinton won the under-30 vote by double digits in PA, WV and KY. Remember winning the presidency is a state-by-state game.

It's the loss of these working class swing voters, these so-called Reagan Democrats, that kills us every time. Clinton's enduring popularity should be the red flag to the Democratic Party and to the media that they're about to blow it, again.

Posted by: BJWL | May 21, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Plenty of posters are saying flat out: Obama cannot win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia. I am wondering what data or logic they have to support these claims. It seems many believe primaries decide how a state will vote in the general. But they ignore the obvious differences between the two races.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 21, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

No - and pointless debate at this stage of the game.

But FIX you are getting better on TV, you used to look and sound like a lightweight among the real talents on the air. But you are now holding your own. Good Job, now if you can only stop coming to your won blog with a gas can and sitting back and watching the fireants eat each other for your own amusement.

You should at least know that the questions is irrelevant, if you want to at least be taken seriously among your peers.

Heres a question for you, why with all this support is Sen. Clinton still having significant problems raising money? Clearly her supporters want her to stay in, why are they not giving her the money she needs. And, is that not why she is being outspent in advertising?

Posted by: Huh | May 21, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I think some of this is correctable -- Obama has been painted as an elitist, which is something that makes the working-class cringe. I think that after he gets to the general election phase, he'll be able to start reintroducing himself in a new context, where he is not being compared against a Democrat who has similar beliefs and goals, but against a Republican who arguably has more elitist tendencies. McCain will argue he is not, but by birth, by marriage, and by policy -- such as has new-found love of tax cuts for the wealthy -- he can be painted that way.

Also, there is clearly a racial component to this -- on both sides -- in the south and parts of the rust belt. But it cuts both ways. A very energized African-American electorate, and a new-found youth vote, could bring a couple of southern R states into play (I would look for NC, VA, and Mississipi to swing D). I think he'll still be able to carry most of the traditionally dem states like PA, because the economy is a big issue, and the Rs have shown themselves totally inept at handling it, but it will be close [I think NC is more of a sure thing for him that PA, actually].

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

One of the more interesting statistics from the exit poll was the wide difference between Kentucky and Oregon voters on the issue of the gas tax holiday.
By wide margins, Oregon voters see the idea as a gimmick and Kentucky voters like the proposal.
Obama thinks the tax holiday is a gimmick.
Knowing that, how is Obama to win votes in Kentucky from people who fundamentally disagree with his position?
Over the last 25 years, the answer has been easy -- lie. Through your teeth.
Obama chose not to do that, and sought votes from voters who agreed with him.
Why should he seek votes -- and why should you expect him to worry about votes from -- people who fundamentally disagree with him.

I find it interesting how powerful Clinton's interpretations have been on the analysis of the Democratic nominating process all year.
The Clinton campaign has created -- perhaps for the first time in modern political history -- a widespread notion that the front runner is the person who wins ALL the primaries and that to claim front-runner status one must never lose a state.

McCain lost plenty of southern and western states to Romney and Huckabee, even after it was clear that McCain was on a trajectory to win.

Yet in the Democratic Party world now, we have this noxious idea that if a candidate loses a state where he is unpopular that this is somehow troubling.

The proper question is for Clinton: Why is she not broadly popular in solid Democratic states such as Oregon and Washington?

So, in conclusion, Obama won where he was popular and lost where he was unpopular. No surprises. Does this mean he will not win working-class white votes?
No. It means he will not win votes from working-class whites who disagree with him. He will win votes from working-class whites who agree with him.

But, to win the White House, Obama does not need to win the working-class white vote.
Instead, he needs to win majorities in enough states to receive 271 electoral votes.

That is the measure of victory. Not these demographic rabbit holes everyone seems to willing, at Clinton's request, to dive into.

Posted by: Ego Nemo | May 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign says the staggering numbers that Clinton received in West Virginia and Kentucky "aren't meaningful" because Obama spent very little time in West Virginia or Kentucky and they say when he does campaign the numbers will move up accordingly. Unsound. His campaign spent HEAVILY and advertised HEAVILY in OREGON---remember the crowds 75,000 at one location---in our faces on the news, yet he only managed to TIE Clinton with the white collar workers and the college crowd. This should be sending a SUPER MESSAGE to the DNC unless they want a candidate that is going to LOSE the Election in NOVEMBER.

The DNC is counting on Hillary's followers to go to Obama but they will not! They will not follow this man who is deceiving the country. The feelings are strong and growing stronger by the day. Barack Hussein Obama will fail in the November Election and it is a sure thing.

Posted by: Anne | May 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Once again you demonstrate that you are one of the few pundits in print who has not let his personal feelings cloud his reporting. You deserve much praise for that.

You are dead on in your assessment. Barring a major change in the debate or some October surprise, Obama will lose Kentucky and West Virginia, and will likely lose Pennsylvania and Ohio. Michigan is a toss up. Sorry but Colorado and North Carolina, a long shot at best, cannot make up for the loss of these four states.

Can I suggest that you might want to knock some sense into Dana Milbank. Or at least knock the glass of Kool Aid out of his hand.

Posted by: dclb | May 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I am an independent, and I am supporting the Democrats for the first time since Kennedy. Iam sick and tired of the Republicans giving away the bank to big corporations, big oil, and the farmers.
I also don't believe the people the people in the Democratic Party will come together and vote for whoever the candidate is. What the media is failing to mention, and so are the Clinton's is that a lot of Republican voters switched parties to vote in the Democratc primary (mostly for Clinton). These are the people who say that they will vote for McCain in November because they will switch back. Why doesn't the media tell us how many voters in Kentucky, Penna, WVa, Ohio, etc.,were Republicans?
Why hasn't the media tried to find out how much the Clinton's paid Rev. Wright to interfere with the Primaries? You don't hear from him now. He is off enjoying himself. Clinton has made a mockery of our election system and should be kicked out of the Senate. She keeps wanting the rules changed to fit her needs. Who does this woman think she is? I'll tell you who she is; she is a nut case that needs to be put in a mental hospital for treatment. I would be scared to death to have her as our President. And can you see her husband as the VP? Oh my God, there would be no military, China would give him another $10 million for more secrets, the White House would be party land for whoever wanted to use it. I don't think we need Clinton. We need someone who will work with the people and do what's right, and the country knows that.

Posted by: Eddie | May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I have never voted for a Republican in my life but it looks like this time is it. I will hold my nose and hope that the honest character and intentions of John McCain will guide him to better policies than the usual selfishness of the GOP.
He has shown in the past that he can get by the usual fossilized positions of the GOP to do the right thing.
I believe that Obama, in his haste to effect "CHANGE" and reward his more wacky supporters, especially the ivory tower "intellectuals" will make too many rookie mistakes and only make our current disaster worse.
I know that many of my Democtrat friends believe that any Dem is better than any Republican, but not this time. I still am hoping against hope that the party will ignore the hysteria and pick a different candidate or we will see the results of another Humphrey or Dukakis election.

Posted by: Richard Dimberio | May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Even when whites vote 75% for Clinton, blacks vote 91% for Obama.

Who is calling who racist?

Posted by: mario | May 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you left out a key element from the exit polls in KY and WV: about 20 percent of voters in both states indicated race played a role in their decision.

I am highly insulted that the Democratic Party would place so much emphasis on winning those votes. This is 2008, not 1908. Those voters should be sent a message that their racist views are not welcome in the Democratic Party, especially since the Democratic nominee will give his/her acceptance speech on the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech.

Posted by: Seneca | May 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Translator - Let me guess, this is the posting that you don't like - you hate the truth, don't you ???

I see you take to harrassment and mocking in an attempt to silence the truth.

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


Obama's campaign HAS been been telling the Superdelegates that they face a backlash from the black community if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.


The fearmongering HAS been crazy.


This is basically a racist argument - just like the fear of a lynching.


It is out of control.


Place this episode with the South Carolina incidents and the Gerry Ferraro attacks, and we have a pattern emerging of the Obama campaing running a RACIAL INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN.


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


Earlier Posting:


The Obama campaign has essentially been threatening the superdelegates with "POLITICAL LYNCHING" if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.


Intimidation is the word that best describs the Obama campaign's approach to the superdelegates.


This is one reason why so many superdelegates do not want to commit, they actually want to avoid a public endorsement.


How else can one view this situation as nothing other than RACIST.


Hillary is at a racial disadvantage. This coming from a campaign that was supposed to be "post-racial" - a campaign theme we all know now is nothing more than a complete FRAUD.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 21, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

When media reports that Obama "loses" among lower-middle class and blue-collar whites, we should remember that it is a loss relative to Clinton's performance: he has a base to build on with these groups, given the proportion of their vote he did win.

Posted by: casandra1 | May 21, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

A few things:

1) The problem is not with all white blue collar voters for Obama. The problem is with white blue collar voters east of the Miss. River (specifically in the mountains and in the south). He wins primaries overwhelmingly white states like Oregon, Iowa, North Dakota, Idaho, etc., and he wins in Clinton's so-called demographic strength. He even performed well in the white demographic in the few western states he lost (Cali, and Arizona).

2)Many of these people are the mythical animal of the Reagan Democrat who really left the party in the general decades ago, but retained their membership, because it is what you did in those areas. My father belongs to this group. He votes in the Democratic primary, but he has not voted for Dem in the general for decades. he was not going to start this year, even though he is one of Hillary's coveted white blue collar vote. Reagan Dems left the party long ago, and are not coming back, even for Hillary, they will be those cross-over voters the media loves to focus on, but they have been reliably Republican in the general for years. The Democratic Party has changed away from these voters socially, which I tend to think is a good thing. I think they should be welcome if they want to vote Democratic, and we should offer economic policies that help them, but changing our views on civil rights (for African-Americans or gays) or women's rights is wrong-headed morally and politically. The 2006 election and demographic studies of the current young generation show that there is a new voting block emerging that supports these views and will constitute a Democratic majority that would abandon the party if they were to cater to Reagan Dems. social conservatism.

3) The campaigns are using white blue collar voters as a euphemism for white people to racist to vote for an African American, and the media and the Clinton campaign are dancing around it. This is not to say that all Clinton voters are racist, because they are not, but this demographic in West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky is. Why should the Democratic party cater to them when there is lower hanging fruit for voter demographics (young people, African Americans)?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Translator


You are harassing people and mocking them even when they do not post

I am here

You lost all your arguments the past two days, time to hang it up.


There are alot of good points on here today.

HA !

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

We can talk all day long about how both candidates aren't or are doing with specific cohorts. Why isn't Obama connecting with the "hillary-billies?" Why can't Hillary connect with the educated whites? And so on....

The fact is that Obama now has an unbeatable delegate lead. I realized how silly it is for Hillary to pursue a campaign last night, when she exclaimed how great it was that a young Kentucky boy had sold his bike for $400 to give to her campaign.

Does Hillary really need to be taking money from the sale of children's bikes to continue her inevitable defeat? I find this self-serving and wrong.

Posted by: neb | May 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

We can talk all we want but we won't know what will happen in November until it happens. I try to vote for the best available candidate. I felt that was Senator Clinton. In November I'll apparently have to vote for someone else, but it won't be Senator Obama. His lack of experience makes him a very poor choice for one of the most important positions in the world. I've been really surprised at how many highly-educated people have supported him. Solid experience is and should be critical in this election. I'm 70 years old and I approve this message.

Posted by: Hugh | May 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"It seems to me that his problems are not in the 'Rust Belt', but are instead in the 'Border States'."

Get a geography lesson. Maryland is a border state that is also in the Appalachians and it went for Obama. Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are not "Border States" by any definition of the term. All were pure Union blue in the 1860's. Obama has problems with blue collar voters. Even in progressive states his numbers are not great, just passable. Blue collar voters should be right in McCain's sweet spot. Obama-freaks need to admit this at some point and quit crying racism.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

All posts this morning

"I used to be Words of Wisdom/37th&OStreet, but after being routed out of here last night and made to look the fool, I am dispensing with the pretense of an alter ego. The name may change, but the garbage I post here that has provoked little reaction but bemused giggling remains the same.

Maybe I should change my name to Loser."

Posted by: Anonymous Translator | May 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I am an Independant. I decided to support the Democratic party this election cycle because of the level of disgust that I am feeling toward President Bush in particular and the overall Republican leadership in general.

I am, unfortunately, disheartened to see the Democrats throwing bombs at each other. If it were not so amusing to see them getting closer and closer to jumping over the cliff it would be truly sad.

Those long term party members who say that they will not vote for the Obama ought to take a long hard look at what a McCain victory will really mean. Supreme Court nominations are likely. Do you folks really want the Sumpreme Court to go further to the right? I believe that it is time for the appointment of a centrist or left of center judge. The court needs balance.

Keep in mind that neither Barrack, nor Hillary can win the general election without the support of the others minions.

If the fight goes to the convention floor, even though Obama has the majority of pledged delegates, the popular vote and super delegates, it will break the back of the party.

With the accusations of sexism, etc.., and the threats of not voting or going over to McCain, the party is doing what it so often does. Shooting itself. The RNC is crossing its fingers right now that a floor fight will ensue, or that Hillary will not convincingly campaing for and endorse Obama after she conceeds in early June.

To be honest....I like McCain. I voted for Ronald Reagan once. Bush's father. I've been splitting my ticket for almost thirty years.

If the so called "working class" voters, without college degrees, and older women who are peeved that Hillary has not won, stay home and don't vote.....they will get what they deserve for not supporting a candidate that has their best interests in mind as well as Hillary.

I want everyone who thinks that 2012 is an option after the back of the party is broken once again, to think about the most recent ruling from our Supreme COurt concerning equal pay.....

But hell......I'm only a middle aged Southern Male who has been inspired by Barrack Obama.

Posted by: Craig | May 21, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

As I watch more and more of the this primary, I can't help but think that there is a huge problem for Obama, that is getting the moderate vote. There within lies the problem. I keep hearing Obama supporters talking about landslide victories in November, but when the candidate gets all his support from the bluest of the blue Democrats, and Hillary seems to be getting those who tend to support various candidates rather than a party, I can't help but think there will be no landslide victory in November, and in fact there may be no victory at all in November.

Does Obama have a problem? Yes and it is with moderate democrats like myself who have never followed lockstep with the party. I have always picked my candidates by what they stand for, rather than what party they belong to. As a former member of the US Marine Corps, I probably have more in common with moderate Republicans, but face it, that's where most of America is; in the middle. It's the extremes of both parties that tend to drive moderates like me away from the party. I haven't left the Democratic party, but I certainly feel the party is starting to leave me. They can't continue to ignore the moderates to pander to the ultra-left intellectuals and expect us to go along just because they are "different" than the current administration.

I have and will continue to support Hillary because she understands not only foreign policy better than Obama, but understands that you can't just toss aside things like the right to bear arms, which Obama wants to do... "Yes, Virginia, gun owner's rights do have a place in the Democratic party"...

I think if nothing at all, this primary season has shown that both parties have issues relating to the moderates (and the majority of people) in this country.

WB

Posted by: WB | May 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse


Yesterday, Time's Joe Klein noted that he could find no evidence that Sen. Barack Obama had ever specifically said he would negotiate with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate--specifically, by name -- with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has. He did say that he would negotiate with the Iranian leadership -- but, on matters of foreign policy and Iran's nuclear program, the guy in charge is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. As of today, John McCain was still accusing Obama of wanting to negotiate with Ahmadinejad. Why doesn't the McCain campaign and other assorted Republicans ever accuse Obama of wanting to negotiate with Khamenei? Well, because Khamenei isn't quite the flagrant anti-Semite Ahmadinejad is...and, as we keep hearing, Obama has a Jewish problem.

Later in the day, Klein confronted McCain with this question at a press conference. For a foreign policy "expert," McCain clearly has a pattern of getting the basic facts wrong. McCain insisted that ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Ahmadinejad -- even mocking Klein when he challenged him on it. In fact, according to the CIA's World Factbook, ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not the president.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

No. The democrats shouldn't be worried about white working class voters. From everything I have read or heard Obama will be running against John McCain and not Hillary this November. You cannot take primary results and copy and paste them over to a general election. Clinton may be more attractive than Obama to White working class non-college educated voters. However, since Obama will be the Democratic nominee that argument is meaningless. The question that must be answered is: who appeals more to white working class non-college educated voters, John McCain or Barack Obama? As plenty of analysts and posters have stated, "it's the economy stupid". And I do not foresee economically troubled voters ordering "more of the same" or "another 4 years of Bush". This election is still shaping up to be a blowout for the Dem's and Obama.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

In the beginning of the primary Obama had a majority of the voters and Clinton had the majority of the Super Delegates. At that time Obama stated that the Super Delegates should select him since he had the majority of the voters and they should honor the voters over the opinion of the Super Delegates selection. Now that he has the majority of the Super Delegates he has changed his position once again as he usually does. As he stated in the beginning the Super Delegates should select the candidate with the greatest number of voters counted. That would mean selecting Clinton over Obama.

Posted by: American not African | May 21, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that his problems are not in the 'Rust Belt', but are instead in the 'Border States'. It is interesting watching the pundits try to put a name to it. I think it is pretty obvious, and it goes all the way back to the 1860's in that belt of states.

Posted by: scarp | May 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Time for my first rant on WaPo..and CC...You guys who get to be out there giving the info to the public do not realize you re-enforce the racism in our society...by repeating the mantra over and over again..
I have a few things to take issue with the Clinton camp..
A kind of laundry list..
Let us start with the BS they have been spewing about Caucus states..
Excuse me but did they not vote the same way 16 years ago when her husband ran for office? You mean to tell me the "Clinton" brains did not remember how an election was run?
The Caucus states were good enough for a Clinton in 92 and 96 but we should change the rules for them in 2008..
Speaking of rules..we can also get a bit pissy with how she has dealt with Florida and Michigan..
Rules are rules and she agreed to the terms and conditions of the DNC's decision..They DON'T count...
This election cycle did one thing for me..unfortunately it was not a good thing either..
Hillary has removed feminism to a low point..
I feel I now have to were pantsuits in order to be taken seriously and that I must remove my breasts if I want to run for a major office.
She spit at us younger women in many ways..created a vision that woman cry when we are tired...we lie when we are tired..we sell out when we know we ought to divorce a philanderer..(I have personal experience on this issue)..I kicked him to the curb..but she couldn't..not if she wanted his coat tails..

Vetting..we must touch this one..She says she had been vetted..well actually she hasn't..and do not think close scrutiny of their personal finances and donations to the Clinton library will make it through the complete sniff test..
This is just the short list of ..Hey C'mon..what are you trying to pull anyway?

I have been paying attention and I wish so would my fellow Americans..

Do you actually believe the tripe that comes from the Clinton campaign..can you honestly wish upon America the kind of disorganization her campaign has shown us for the past year? Is this how she would manage America?
Already in debt..no exit strategy..if you ask me she is just like GWB ..no fore thought..only instant gratification..her name brand wasn't enough to get her to be the nominee..
Obama has been amazing and has shown true change in how the election cycle can be run..
He may be young and everyone thinks he has no experience..but I beg to differ..
His campaign has been run rather well, they have broken all fund raising records and have helped increase the rolls of Democrats by millions of new registered voters.

I was growing up as a teen in the 80's and I lived the end of racism..I went to a school in Chicago that was supposed to be racially balanced in order to promote equality in the urban setting..It kind of worked..I do not view my brothers and sisters of darker skin as anything less then a brother or a sister human..
Racism is not born into us it is taught..by our families and our society..The way the media has dealt with the issue of race is appalling to say the least...and they are completely ignoring the fact that as they report it..it fans the flames of hidden hatred through our society..

Barack Obama's biggest problem is that everyone keeps forgetting he is not just African American but he is also half Caucasian.
He is the true embodiment of race equality..and that scares the Bejesus out of a lot of the white folks ..who know in their heart they still fear black people.

I'm just speaking the truth..

So..Madam Clinton..you screwed yourself on how this campaign was run..as for Obama and his "white" problem?
He said it in Phillie...we need to have an OPEN discussion about race..not just veiled insults through campaign surrogates..

I voted for Obama and will do so in November..I would vote for her if I was forced to as a true Democrat, I could never go against my core principals to cast an angry vote..That to me is childish and says those kind of people do not deserve the privilege to vote....
Obama can make inroads after he gets the nomination ..he has shown he can do very well when he spends time in a state..
I think if he gets the Dems to unite..this fall could be a surprising land slide...even those scared white folk might get a clue when they take a REAL CLOSE LOOK at Mr McCain...they SHOULD be SCARED, but not by the half white half black fella...

Posted by: Goddesscon2001 | May 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"You must vote for me because I represent the downtrodden descendants of the slaves."

The irony here is that Obama's family background probably has less slavery in it than mine does (a white male). His father is from Africa and his mother is white. His family suffered neither through slavery nor civil rights. Obama is largely a fraud when it comes to such issues. All he can really say is that he represents the mixed race people of this country. Also, a good part of his childhood was spent in Hawaii. How much racism do you experience in Hawaii? Come on.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse


easyenough

your thinking is pretty easy enough - and NOT enough

simpleminded


Obama used the Divide and Conquer politics in Chicago

I expect like most Obamabots you know NOTHING about your American Idol candidate - aside from what he and Axelrod tell you


It's pathetic

Certainly the bell curve has ruined America


Politics 101 - DIVIDE AND CONQUER


Read more about Obama. It's EXACTLY his strategy - and his history.


In Chicago he used it and in this contest he trotted Oprah out right off the bat - for the black like me vote - - in SC when it wasn't working -- he accused Bill Clinton of being a racist. Rotten politics. Obama is rotten and dirty Chicago. Chicago was black - he had to earn the black vote in the rest of America and he "expected" it as a "gimmie". In certain "speeches" to blacks in Selma on MLK day he was practically BEGGING them to see him as black. Speaking all twangy and inner city voice. It was really pathetic to watch. He has a real identity problem. He sees his white grandparents as stupid - his grandma made him "cringe" - but Rev Wright didn't. Obama went in search of his black identity. He doesn't really like being white.

What a shame it shows so starkly in his choice of spiritual mentor, his words about "bitter gun clinging white folk".

I hear the Republicans ahve a great video of Michelle ranting about "whities" at the church.

Wont' that be something.

Obama is a despicable DIVIDER. It's his MO.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"Since 1972, when exit polls first began, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white voters. The closest division was in 1992, a three-way contest when 39 percent of whites voted for Bill Clinton and 40 percent voted for the first President Bush. In 2004, President Bush defeated John Kerry among whites by 58 percent to 41 percent."

Posted by: easyenough | May 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Dear God when will America wake up and realize that Obama can't beat McCain! I am so sick of his pie in the sky talk about Change! I want competence in the Whitehouse! This country needs Hillary - who is winning the popular vote. The Florida and Michigan votes need to be counted and there should be an uprising if they're not! I am from Florida. Must this state always be the one to screw up the election??? Wake up Superdelegates and smell the popular vote!

Posted by: Roberta Johnson | May 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't really matter that Obama did poorly in West Virginia or Kentucky. In Kentucky almost as many Democrats voted in this years primary as voted in 2004's general election. Republians? 18.5%.

The endless campaign is producing a phenomena that gets totally ignored, in that the longer the campaign runs the higher the Democratic turn out in these elections. Republican turnout is typical of normal primaries, in the ten to twenty percent range.

If the current proportions of voters hold for the general elections, based on only the states that have voted, the Dems win, 437 to 82 electoral votes. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Dems might carry 520 electoral votes, and if a Paul/Tancredo ticket pops up it might not be unlikely that Obama, for it appears that he will be the candidate, would carry every state.

That might be the best thing for the country, the appearance of unanimity in the electoral college when the first non white candidate wins the White House.

For those with the time, access, and interest, look at all the ratios of contested offices at Congressional, State, and local levels. You only get to vote in one primary, so the weathervane contests are in districts where Republicans are really contesting for Congressional, gubernatorial, or important state offices. There the level of participation should suggest just how motivated the republicans are.

It certainly doesn't look good for McCain that Obama beat him by sixty thousand votes, without campaigning, and Hillary more than tripled his vote total in Kentucky. Republicans stayed home for the Primary, will they stay home for the general Election?

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | May 21, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I, among thousands, will not vote for Obama. I will not and cannot forget that he didn't stand up as a man against blatant sexism. I believe as President he will follow suit and only stand up for what benefits him. Further, he has no resume to become President of this great nation.

Posted by: Boufers | May 21, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

If Barrack cannot reign his supporters who throw vitriol at Hillary and her compaign they can count out at least 20% of the democratic voters in November. That will make the victory of the republican. jsut look at the number of votes for Mccain, Obama, and Clinton in Oregon. 20% of Clinton votes to McCain wil not give Oregon to the "D" rather to "R".

Think again Barrack supporters before you divide the party.

Posted by: mediastinks | May 21, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse


OBAMA CAME TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER

TO HOLD THE BLACK LIKE ME VOTE HOSTAGE.

WHEN ARE THE MEDIA GOING TO HEADLINE THAT FACT?


SOON WOULD BE GOOD

IT WAS A ROTTEN THING TO DO


HILLARY DID NOT DIVIDE THIS PARTY, NEVER WOULD AND NEVER HAS


OBAMA CAME TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER

TO HOLD THE BLACK VOTE HOSTAGE TO GET WHAT HE WANTS

HE IS A DESPICABLE POLITICIAN

A TOTAL POLITICIAN


NOT NICE

NOT SOMEONE WE WANT AS PRESIDENT

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The whine from Clinton supporters this morning is almost deafening. She has lost. And not because she's a woman, but because America consists of more than the particular mass of voters being dissected in these comments. America is MANY different voices, who over the course of this primary have spoken. Some have spoken for Hillary; more for Barrack. WE have all heard their messages for months now. Obviously from the delegate count, more chose to believe Barrack.
That doesn't mean his words were racist or anti-feminist or lies or for that matter the truth.
It simply means that for what ever reason they connected in a way and in a primary system.
So enough with the anger and cries of foul play already.
You don't belittle the candidate. You belittle America. You, not Obama or Hillary divide the country.
Seek within the common connection. It is that connection which leads to the higher ground.

Posted by: easyenough | May 21, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Recent exit polls have shown that there is still a racial bias among a sizable portion of voters. A few months ago, Barack Obama gave one of the best speeches ever made by an American political figure about the racial divide in the country. Since then, for reasons I cannot fathom, he seems to have stepped away from this issue as well as other issues of a controversial nature. In the general election, he should go directly to those areas of the country which seem most Obama resistant and address this issue forcefully. Although many voters do not seem to realize it, our country's problems are caused by a socio-economic divide, not a racial one. Barack Obama is the perfect candidate to address these issues. His mother came from a working class midwestern family. He needs to emphasize those roots, particularly since he was raised by his mother and maternal grandparents, and demonstrate to voters who are fearful of his ethnicity that our major problems -- lack of a proper health care system, gross economic inequality, a system of taxation that places a disproportionate share of the burden upon working and middle class citizens, a devasting foreign policy -- have been brought about by inordinate corporate control of all levels of our government, and can only be solved by the election of a strong Democrat willing to make major changes in our country.

Posted by: cwppros | May 21, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse


Obamabots.

Get Reality. Quick! The starship is not coming.


Obama did not campaign in states where no one would show up. Where no one would vote for him.

Obama has lost his appeal - he is a house of cards.


Get Reality. Do it quick! The Presidency is not an entry level position.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"Great post - that is the cold hard reality. If there is no other reason for your reluctance to vote for a candidate, then your vote is not one to be courted. There are those who will open their hearts and minds and there are those who will continue to wallow in racism and ignorance."

Obama-freaks. When will they learn that not everyone who dislikes their candidate is racist. Obama has very little appeal to blue collar voters. That is why he loses them. He wins more whites in liberal states like Oregon and Wisconsin because he is more liberal than HRC. Hillary is way more centrist and moderate than Obama. I am college educated, but my family back ground is blue collar and I always lean way more towards that side of the party than the Latte-liberal side. I actually support unions by trying to buy union-made products. I think most white Obama-bots are comfortable buying coffee at Starbucks and driving a Camry or Accord. I got a union-made Hillary sticker on a union-made Dodge (VIN begins with a "1"). I think McCain has way more appeal to blue-collar voters than Obama. That is not saying I will vote for McCain. Obama needs to be wise with his VP pick. Currently I do not feel comfortable voting for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

What still baffles me is that all the hoopla over the Obama "sure thing" win. He is ever closer to that Magic 2025 mark ... This touted by the press day after day ... and "magic" it truly is, as this mark was magically arrived at by totally ignoring two states, one of which is the nation's fourth largest. I would wonder if the hope is that this fact will "magically" disappear from the minds of the American Citizens.
Clinton is constantly chided for continuing her bid for the nomination ... "she should give up" ... Why???? I am not a supporter of Clinton, Obama, or McCain for that matter, and not matter who the two combatants will be from the major parties in November will vote Libertarian or for none of the above. However, if Clinton desires to give it a try ... and continues to feel that she really wants to aspire to become president ... LET HER, that is he right as a citizen. What is becoming of this country? We have two major parties that have (we are long past the "becoming" stage) become TOTALLY out of touch with the citizens -- and more sadly, don't care that they have, who put forth candidates that more often than not are NOT the popular choices .. don't worry, we'll get used to them must be the rational there ... and now have become even more arrogant, in that they'll even change their rules (don't worry Americans won't notice and if they do, they won't notice long.)
When one says that they may not cast a ballot because they don't like the choices or that they may well vote for "none of the above" they are often chided - being given the rational - "Don't you want your vote to count?" Or, "well, then just vote for the 'lesser of two evils'!" ... Has this what we have digressed too? Where a "vote that counts" is the important thing, even if you are only give choices between a selection from garbage column "A" or column "B".
In my opinion we have gone from a participatory form of government, to one where we are simply observers ... or perhaps worse yet, we have been relegated to merely an audience who is forced to pay for admission to the show ... and the price of admission is getting higher and higher, and higher.

Posted by: Dale | May 21, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

IT'S A NO BRAINER


MR. OBAMA HAS SUCCEEDED IN DIVIDING THIS PARTY

Posted by: |
**********************
it's a no brainer because coward with no brain posted it.

Posted by: I want to be a John McCain troll when I grow up | May 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse


It isn't "appalacia" - do not fool yourself.

It is people who have seen Obama for who he is. Early on - they did not.

Obama is a house of cards.

Get Reality.


50% does NOT and NEVER WILL = 100%


Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I think way too much is made over these white working class voters (a group my family would have been called) Where is the future of the country and of the party? It is not with these voters who perhaps are best thought to be caught by their history and unable to move forward like the rest of the country. Change is difficult but that isnt an excuse for this segment of the population, which is shrinking in importance and which seems to have an affinity for Republican candidates. Obama could spin on his head and he is only going to get a certain percentage of their votes. Clinton panders to them yet we forget that they are likely to turn their back on her in a general election when they realize once again she is a epitome of a liberal, despite all her cosmetic changes to look more rightwing.
This si a sad election cycle becuase it shows how this country has a problem with dealing with sensitive issues - all it wants to do is throw out code words to attract various blocs.

Posted by: nclwtk | May 21, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse


One more mis-step by Obama or expose regarding his past, his wife, who he is.

Obama is a house of cards.

He withheld information about himself early on in this interview.

We know more about his empty resume and his person now. Blacks may vote for him "just because" - and that seems ok with the media. But it's wrong. Whites just happen to be white - and they will not vote for him. Not "because" they are white. Because they are voting for competence - not just "because".

Get it.


Obama is a house of cards. Because he has a half page resume, has called white Americans names and his wife is a liability.


The most important of those? OBAMA HAS NO RESUME

HE IS A TWO YEAR FRESHMAN SENATOR WHO WON AGAINST A CARPETBAGGER IN ILLINIOIS WHO DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE -

THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT AN INTERNSHIP

GOD BLESS AMERICA


WITH HILLARY CLINTON - Brilliant, full resume, articulate and informed on everything we need her to know

Posted by: Todd | May 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

First Read:

Obama doesn't have a problem with white working-class voters; he has a problem with white-working class voters in Appalachian states. In Kentucky, just one in five of these folks backed him, but in Oregon nearly half of them did. How different are these two states? Consider these exit-poll numbers... In Kentucky, 57% of primary-goers believe the federal gas-tax holiday is a good idea, while 39% said it was a bad idea. But in Oregon, those numbers were essentially reversed: Just 26% said it was a good idea, while 63% said it was a bad idea. In Kentucky, moreover, 53% said that Obama shares Jeremiah Wright's values; in Oregon, just 32% said that. One other thing to keep in mind regarding Clinton's success in Kentucky and West Virginia, and it has to do with the Clinton brand and the economy. These folks in Appalachia have been hit harder by this economy than folks in other parts of the country. And the last time things were looking up was when a Clinton was in the White House. So while there are a lot of folks wanting to think the worst of some of these voters, let's keep in mind: Appalachia and the Rust Belt, more than any other region of the country, are more likely to vote their pocket book when the economy is in the toilet. And this is where the Clinton brand comes into play.

--- Much better than your view, Chris!!!

Posted by: PP | May 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't matter.
Remember all the Romney supporters who would never, ever, ever vote for McCain? Where are they now? Most of them are on board. Once the Democrats end the contest and spend a month or two on party unity running against McCain and Bush, most of those who voted for Hillary will come over to Obama.

Losing a primary doesn't mean that you'll lose the General in that state. Does this mean that Clinton can't win Illinois or Wisconsin or Oregon-- three states she'd really need in the general election? KY and WV aren't critical to Obama winning in November. VA, CO, MN, WI, IA--that's where the battle will be, and that's where Obama is strong and Hillary is not.

Posted by: ph | May 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Answer: Yes. Why? most of the country is white and working class. That's just a fact. Spin it however you want, you can't argue with the census data of the United States. If Obama doesn't appeal to the majority of Americans, for whatever reason, he presents Democrats with a BIG problem.

I think he would make a great vice president. Give the country 8 years to get to know him and like him better and he'll be a fine president in 8 years.

Posted by: Shelly T. | May 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Yes! The Democratic party should be concerned about the results in W Va and KY. The opinions of undereducated bigots should always dictate our choice.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Humor me here.  Pull out all the caucus states and look at the results.  The general election is not conducted by caucus. ( remember Texas?)  Now pull out the primary states and look at the results.  Now look at all the states as winner take all and look at the results, the general election is winner take all.  The problem with the Democrats is they get all wrapped up in themselves and they lose sight of the main objective, win the white house.  So come November they will have another "moral victory" and the Republicans will have the white house.

Posted by: realistic in Massachusetts | May 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, there are too many voters who vote for a "dream" instead of reality. Obama is selling a "dream" and these lemmings are lining up to join the run to the sea. He comes with a extreme liberal background, no leadership credentials and plays the race card to a T. He says subliminally, You must vote for me because I represent the downtrodden descendants of the slaves. I met and dealt with people having his background and attitude in the business world and believe me when I say they are two-dimensional paper cutouts without detectable skills beyond talking a good game. The American people are being sold a farce in three acts.

Posted by: pmichaelis | May 21, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

If this country is still so backwards as to believe that race or gender impacts the job they can do we deserve what we get. It's that simple.


Posted by: MLK | May 21, 2008 9:44 AM
---------------------------------
Sadly this is the country that gave us two terms of W.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Of course Kentucky and West Virginia should be of concern to the Democrats. You can not tell people that their vote is meaningless or that it does not count. That is arrogance at its finest.

Posted by: Evonne Parkins | May 21, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

So, What?....Are you implying that the demos should run on attracting the hillbilly vote and that is who will be running the country for the next 4 years?
I'll take Obama, please if for no other reason than to escape Hillary's harridan harangues. At least Obama has a vision for the future instead of the same old same old which is what you will get with H.C.

Posted by: Jack | May 21, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama allies insist these sorts of staggering numbers aren't meaningful when it comes to understanding the general election playing field. Obama spent very little time in West Virginia or Kentucky, they argue, and when and if he does this fall the numbers will move up accordingly.

Obama was way ahead in Oregon and HILLARY AND HER SUPPORTERS TOOK HALF

Mr. Obama's "staggering" numbers are doing just that. And he received many many of his delegates in contests prior to the Rev Wright answers. Mr. Obama deliberately did not answer those questions about himself until he had delegates. People didn't know Obama when they voted for him in this ridiculously front end loaded nomination with proportional rules set up for this disaster by dum dum Dean.

Mr. Obama has lost his glamour and people see more of who he is and isn't. That is why these numbers are what they are.

Re-votes in all states in November will equal NOBAMA.

People made mistake votes in early contests before knowing more about him. Many whites in those states would not vote for him today. And he won caucuses where less than 2000 people voted. Big wins? Nope.

Mr. Obama came DELIBERATELY to DIVIDE AND CONQUER

HE CAME TO SPLIT THIS PARTY AND HOLD THE BLACK LIKE ME VOTERS HOSTAGE (but it's "wrong" for women to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman - what a double standard!!!)


Mr. Obama succeeded in dividing the Democrat Party

He can hobble forward with his hostage black voters and half the party. one leg. He will NOT win in November. We see him now - we don't like him.

November = NOBAMA


HILLARY IS THE CANDIDATE WHO HAS ALWAYS UNITED DEMOCRATS, CARED ABOUT THEM

SHE IS BRILLIANT, INFORMED, ARTICULATE, AND THE BEST CANDIDATE BY MILES


IT'S A NO BRAINER


MR. OBAMA HAS SUCCEEDED IN DIVIDING THIS PARTY


Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

What can I say but that the dumbing down of America is manifesting it self in more ways than one. The one that I am sure of is the "R" word....fueled no doubt by the lack of or level of education. This is a true and personal anecdote: Our family took a ATV mobiling trip to the wonderful terrain in WV last year. The children (young teens) got friendly with a few of the local kids and in the course of conversation our trip to Europe the previous year came up. Guess what..the local kids had never heard of the continent!

It is telling that the northwest (incl. Oregon) with it's white population demographic should consider Barack Obama in an another light...one much less devoid of the race factor...if any.

Posted by: Ohillary | May 21, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

That is why communist, socialist like to keep people poor, less educated so they can manipulate them. Senator Clinton is not a fighter since she has spent her donor's money and time, taken advantage of people's sympathy for her own future agenda. West virginia and Kentucky are her inherited fortunes from former President Clinton. Our ancestors established our own country so we can get away from King, Queen and dynasty but now we just tie ourselves to few families Bush, Clinton. There are over 300 millions people in U.S.A. so why we have limited our choices of leaders. Our current problems that range from economy to foreign affairs require a system thinking or comprehensive solution. Soultions that stem from experiences are not effective since they just view and analyze problems form one or two perpectives (stovepipe solutions).

Posted by: Nga | May 21, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I am surprised there is no mention of Obama's drubbing of Hillary in all white Oregon, or Hilary's consistent drubbing among black hardworking democratic voters; I guess that does not quite fit into the media's obvious agenda. Obviously he did not compete in kentucky or West Virginia, why compete and lose and then give the Clintons a talking point about how hard he campaigned, how much money he spent, blah blah blah and still he lost, like they did in Pennsylvania. I think it was a smart political calculation to deny her a talking point in a state he was going to lose anyway.

Posted by: PF | May 21, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

The gap in his showing among white voters in Oregon and Kentucky should be a concern for all people in the country. You said that Oregon voters are more liberal, as though that's an explanation, but it isn't, as Obama and Clinton are very, very similar in policy. The only explanation I can see is that "more liberal" voters are more willing to vote for a black guy. So, the country has a long ways to go before we are judging people/presidential candidates by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and Obama has a lot of work to do all over the country. I think he's up to it. The hard core racists can stay home or vote for McCain; the others who will listen and open their hearts will hear him.

Posted by: Ken
*****************************
Great post - that is the cold hard reality. If there is no other reason for your reluctance to vote for a candidate, then your vote is not one to be courted. There are those who will open their hearts and minds and there are those who will continue to wallow in racism and ignorance. All I can say to those who do this is : Aren't you tired yet?

Senator Obama will make those inroads - all he needs is some folks to meet him halfway. The rest? There's McSame or the couch. That is their choice.

Posted by: Not gonna vote against my economic interest | May 21, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I have a theory for Obama's failure to do well in places heavy in some of the rural and blue collar votes. While voters in these areas may not have had the advantage of much education, they may well have more common sense than many of the snobbish, elitist, highly educated followers of Obama.

Posted by: Glennis | May 21, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

simple. I am a white guy I listen to Obama and i figure out he is the one who will bring change. Hillery is the same old things. she voted for the Iraq fiasco and so does mcCain We white black men women hispanic and anybody else who wants change and wants to make America whole again will vote for Obama. we have no other choices...regardless of the critics we have to look beyond sex and race...to the future of America.

by the way although you can not say it Mc Cain is just too old He is almost as old as me and I th ink I am too damn old to run for President.

Posted by: bob | May 21, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I will not vote for Obama!

Posted by: bbowlin | May 21, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama is smart on looking at a different electoral road map to the White House. If they use the same tired map, then what will happen is that McWar will get elected. Hillary will loose the Bubba vote in the general election. Everyone keeps arguing that there is some kind of major white problem, and there is not. He has problems with poor, uneducated white people and with women, who support Hillary.

People keep forgetting how well Obama did in places like Virginia, where he absolutely CRUSHED her. I think it's correct that Obama needs to focus on these places, but where he needs to focus is Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. KY and WVA are non starters in the electoral college and McShame will crush Hillary there anyway. OH, PA and MI all have major urban centers were Obama can and will do well. It's exactly how we won big in Virginia.

It's time to start looking forward, and thinking differently. There are way more states in play out there today for the Democrats that offer a better path to victory. The Democrats can win this election without resorting to the Karl Rove and Dick Nixon Southern Strategy.

Posted by: It's an Appalacia Thing | May 21, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

If this country is still so backwards as to believe that race or gender impacts the job they can do we deserve what we get. It's that simple.

Posted by: MLK | May 21, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

What are the people thinking?....this is crazy. The voters have to be so damn desperate for leadership they will turn to anyone. I mean would you leave the security of your home, your family and everything you have to someone who dosent have a days experience in doing anything in that line of work?...of course not. But if your gonna be voting for Obama thats what your doing. Dont get me wrong I hate the idea of voting either party but at this point the lesser of two evils seems to be the one with the experience. And if you take a look you will see for yourself who has it. Personaly Im boycotting this election....there just isent anyone worth my vote. I learned my lesson of having two losers to vote for from the last election. But if you got to vote make it one that makes sence practically not emoitionaly. Just remember words are just noise the proof is with the record and background.

Posted by: garywayne1961 | May 21, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: bsimon | May 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The poster at 8:20am mentioned "...NYT reefers...". Are these doobies rolled in all the news that's fit to print?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The gap in his showing among white voters in Oregon and Kentucky should be a concern for all people in the country. You said that Oregon voters are more liberal, as though that's an explanation, but it isn't, as Obama and Clinton are very, very similar in policy. The only explanation I can see is that "more liberal" voters are more willing to vote for a black guy. So, the country has a long ways to go before we are judging people/presidential candidates by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and Obama has a lot of work to do all over the country. I think he's up to it. The hard core racists can stay home or vote for McCain; the others who will listen and open their hearts will hear him.

Posted by: Ken | May 21, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The IF'S in the Obama candidancy are too overwhelming to be ignored. He has not been throughly vetted, and one or two more skeletons in his closet will sink his ship. Are folks color-blind? Nope, not in Kenya, not in any of the United Sates, and certsinly not in Ohio or Penssylvania.

Posted by: J Angus | May 21, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

This is a problem and anyone who says it's not is in denial. I am voting fot the Democratic canidate this November, no matter who it is it's better than McShame.

That said it is clear that many are not going to, be it racist or uneducated, they are the same to me, it is the elephant in the middle of the room. We as democrats have to face the fact that the GOP, with Rove leading the way, are going to do any thing they have to to hold onto power.

I recieved this pic in an email from a friend who is worried about Obama, he got it from someone who is not voting for him.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/265357.aspx

The caption in the subject matter and again under the photo was 'A picture says a thousand words'. They are going to play this to death and we must be prepared to fight back.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 21, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign HAS been been telling the Superdelegates that they face a backlash from the black community if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.


The fearmongering HAS been crazy.

This is basically a racist argument - just like the fear of a lynching.


It is out of control.

Place this episode with the South Carolina incidents and the Gerry Ferraro attacks, and we have a pattern emerging of the Obama campaing running a RACIAL INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN.


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


Earlier Posting:


The Obama campaign has essentially been threatening the superdelegates with "POLITICAL LYNCHING" if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.


Intimidation is the word that best describs the Obama campaign's approach to the superdelegates.


This is one reason why so many superdelegates do not want to commit, they actually want to avoid a public endorsement.


How else can one view this situation as nothing other than RACIST.


Hillary is at a racial disadvantage. This coming from a campaign that was supposed to be "post-racial" - a campaign theme we all know now is nothing more than a complete FRAUD.

Posted by: SkyBlue | May 21, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

The WaPo Political Blogs headlines right now list Obama's name five times. No reference to Hillary or her 30+ point blow out in Kentucky. Are you guys trying to prove how blatantly you support the big O?
-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: Wm Tate | May 21, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

This is a stupid line of thought. The vast majority of people who voted for Hillary Clinton are NOT going to vote for pro-life, pro-war, pro-Bush economics John McCain.

This is a PRIMARY of DEMOCRATIC voters. You cannot extrapolate from the primary to the general. Obama is leading in national polls, and that lead is growing now that people are realizing Clinton is not going to win.

This kind of column is embarrassing. How about doing some reporting instead of just spreading innuendo sprinkled with numbers?

Posted by: Noonan | May 21, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

If someone could point to something in Obama's resume that said he could do all the wonderful things he has said he is going to do, like experience at....something.....

Obama may very well make it all the way. I think we may, as a country, be in for a rude awakening. Perhaps the Daley machine is tired of Chicago and longs for the bright lights of Washington. I do not believe he is his own man. This will come out after the election, of course.

I have been referred to as a racist because I am not supporting Obama.

A campaign built on divisiveness, and hate and fear mongering.

I do not support him, and will not.

Point to something, anything in his background that says, leader, accomplishments,.....something.....

An empty suit.

But he is very smart and talks very well.

Posted by: Chris | May 21, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

*
As I'm sure the majority of America feels the same way as I do, that we are tired of being victimized by "the victims" for our sin of being white, I don't think BO's rap is going to stand up when he has to bring it on to all of America; not just the pseudointellectuals that make up his throng now.

As an American-American I say BO is more of the same that has kept his people down for the past hundred years. Stop the whining and start being part of the solution, then run for office.

*Bert

Posted by: BERT CONVY | May 21, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Actually, as a self described "political
junkie"...I have to honestly admit that I can detest some latent racism in some of the individuals who are supposed to be unbiased and simply report the news! How in the world can any "unbiased", thoughtful
thinking, sober individual proclaim that
Obama has a problem with "white working class" voters, like he created the problem?
Democratic nominees haven't won those voters since I can remember!!! Hell, are not these people the so-called "Reagan
Democrats"? More honestly, did anyone really believe that Obama would appeal to
whites who "cling" to guns and religion?
The problem is not that a black man cannot
attract the votes of under-educated, often
times isolated white americans...I would think the problem would be how in the world
did HRC start off this process with the overwhelming support of African Americans and lost it to Obama because of a racist appeal to a group of individuals who are not going to vote democrat in the fall? And on a separate note...how come only
whites are referred to as "working class"?
What, no other ethnic group in america has
blue collar workers within its ranks? The term "white working class" is a term coined
by the elistist whites in the media who want nothing to do with poor whites in this country. Embarassingly, one would be better off being black and living in the hood than in Appalachia....where poor whites are basically invisible to the rest of America.

Posted by: KUNTA KINTE | May 21, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

It's not just the general election that is at stake here, it's the identity of the Democratic Party, which for years, built its foundation on the less educated, the less fortunate, the middle class and the poor. (Remember, the Democratic Party did not fight its battles for white college kids and people making more than $50M a year.) Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attracted less affluent voters from this mix and Barack Obama has attracted incomes of $50M or higher. When I was growing up (I'm 56 and a lifelong Democrat), if you had money, if you could send your kids to college, if you didn't work in a factory, and you were from any place but my own "liberal Northeast," you were a Republican. Democrats beware ... by continuing to denigrate Clinton's base, you are not only chasing that solid, loyal, voting block from the party, you might very well drive them to form a new party. A new party with enough strenght to attract the supporters of Paul, Clinton and Nader and even a Mike Bloomberg would not damage the Republicans as much as it would torpedo the Democrats. All they need is the right leader to ignite a revolt. Remember, Hillary Clinton has almost/just as many/more votes (depends on who's counting) as/than Barack Obama. She is a proven major vote getter. Your insistence on "crushing her" (and you've done a poor job by the way because the people are not buying it ... she's still standing even with a $31 million debt), will in the long term, crush the party. Right now, Obama's strategists are outlining how they will take over the party ... that's what happens when you win a nomination. But if you continue to denigrate this enormous segment of the electorate, you will have thrown out the Babe and the Bath Water. You need Hillary Clinton and you need her voters. But even more important, you need to inject yourselves with a little humility and spirit of conciliation or you will shatter the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Mandelay | May 21, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Why are people more concerned over Obama losing 70% of the uneducated whites more than they are over HRC losing 92% of all blacks?

Posted by: Jayne | May 21, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT

OBAMA 08

Posted by: carmen | May 21, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

What I think is more interesting - he obtained over 30% of the vote and didn't even campaign there. wow.

Posted by: Lynne | May 21, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign has essentially been threatening the superdelegates with "POLITICAL LYNCHING" if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.


Intimidation is the word that best describs the Obama campaign's approach to the superdelegates.


This is one reason why so many superdelegates do not want to commit, they actually want to avoid a public endorsement.


How else can one view this situation as nothing other than RACIST.


Hillary is at a racial disadvantage. This coming from a campaign that was supposed to be "post-racial" - a campaign theme we all know now is nothing more than a complete FRAUD.

***************************************

This campaign has gotten out of control - there is no way that a candidate for President should use these tactics.

Obama will be remembered for what he did in South Carolina and to Gerry Ferraro.


Obama is the most RACIST campaign in decades - race relations are going backwards on account of his tactics.


The thing is it is really "all about him" whether he hurts race relations or not is irrelevant to Obama.


/

Posted by: Green Roof | May 21, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign has essentially been threatening the superdelegates with "POLITICAL LYNCHING" if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.


Intimidation is the word that best describs the Obama campaign's approach to the superdelegates.


This is one reason why so many superdelegates do not want to commit, they actually want to avoid a public endorsement.


How else can one view this situation as nothing other than RACIST.


Hillary is at a racial disadvantage. This coming from a campaign that was supposed to be "post-racial" - a campaign theme we all know now is nothing more than a complete FRAUD.

***************************************

This campaign has gotten out of control - there is no way that a candidate for President should use these tactics.

Obama will be remembered for what he did in South Carolina and to Gerry Ferraro.


Obama is the most RACIST campaign in decades - race relations are going backwards on account of his tactics.


The thing is it is really "all about him" whether he hurts race relations or not is irrelevant to Obama.


/

Posted by: Green Roof | May 21, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The Dems have not won the "white working class" in a general election vote since 1964. Too much has and is being made of this so called Obama problem. It's not HIS problem, it's the Democratic party problem. And Clinton would face the same problem.

Posted by: Tony | May 21, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

There is a basic inconsistency in the logic that you, the MSM and the Clinton campaign employ. Specifically, Obama losing certain groups to Clinton would be significant only if she in fact was a weak candidate- then the argument could be made that "if is he losing to her then what chance does he have in GE". Using another example if Nadal loses to Federer it doesn't say anything about the quality of Nadal's game or how he would do against some other player.

Since clearly Clinton is not a weak candidate (if she were then there wouldn't be any reason to consider her as nominee)I trust you see the vacuousness of your argument.

Posted by: crazyv | May 21, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Are we moving towards the day when a President can assemble a coalition of voters that does not include a majority of white voters? Have been for years. Are we there yet? Perhaps.

In a year where the respective political brands -- D and R -- are equivalent, then perhaps Obama's race, youth and relative inexperience might ruin his chances. Then again, in a year of brand parity, the D's probably go with Hillary. The R brand could not be lower -- scandal, massive deficits, incompetent war management. Putting a white guy in his 70's with plenty of pictures kissing W up for nomination reflects the state of that party right now -- confusion and disarray.

Obama is not a lock, but his upside is a heck of a lot higher than Hillary's. If he wins and has some solid gains to show after 4 years, he could put the D party back onto a long-term path of respectability.

This assumes the USA's problems are managerial and not structural. I am beginning to wonder.

Posted by: Dave | May 21, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: xx | May 21, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

MSNBC had an interesting analysis of the Exit polling last night in KY versus the exit polling in the 2004 General Election. The number of Democratic KY votes with household incomes under $50K said they would vote for McCain as did vote for Bush in 2004. The same similarities held true for other stats as well. In a vacuum the results in KY are alarming. When bounced against history, they are the KY trend that is not a result of Obama.

Posted by: Dan in IL | May 21, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

I think these numbers are something Obama will need to address in the general election this fall. He will need to address this with the right running mate. Why am I not overly concerned by these numbers? Obama still collected more votes than John McCain did. So even if all of Hillary's voters stay home on Election Day Obama still beats McCain. That will not happen, but the Hillary Voters will not switch over to McCain in greater than 1 in 5. This is where Obama's fund raising will serve him well. You basically hit McCain hard with Ads in those states with the two America message and McCain will lose all of these states. I know the Republicans see these states as being McCain territory but it will not happen; it is part of their pipe dream. McCain has so weakened himself with the 2000 run where he ran as a moderate (followed by his Senate votes in 2001 & 2002) and now his hard move to the right he will be labeled as a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry.

Posted by: Bradcpa | May 21, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

No, it shouldn't matter. Obama can win OH, MI, and PA even without winning a majority of the white working class. There are other paths to victory in those states. He needs to do well enough among the white working class to win a majority in those states. That might mean 30-40% of the wwc vote. The superdelegates know that.

Also, it should be pointed out that the white working class in northern Appalachia and further west in rust belt Ohio and Michigan are distinct from their white working class counterparts in southern Appalachia. They're not all the same.

And Obama doesn't need WV or KY to get to 270. There are much brighter prospects elsewhere. The superdelegates know that too.

There. That was easy.

Posted by: novamatt | May 21, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

"Chris you are exactly right! Obama's people are trying to ignore the elephant in the room and no amount of name calling can stop the deluge of dem voters who will leave the party.
The media is so out of touch they don't have any idea how angry the core dems are about obama being shoved down our throats. Its gore, kerry, dukakis, mcgovern all over again. DNC will never learn their lesson."

Hey, you get who you vote for Joe. If the Dems don't like thier nominee they should have voted for Hillary.

But you didn't.

Posted by: Megaduck | May 21, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse


The WP fronts, and the NYT reefers, a Justice Department report released yesterday that details how FBI agents repeatedly complained about tactics used to interrogate detainees in Guantanamo and other military facilities. The report suggests interrogators may have used harsh tactics before they were approved, and continued to use other techniques after they had been prohibited. Although most of the report's contents had already been disclosed, the NYT highlights that it revealed FBI agents were so concerned about the interrogation practices that they created a "war crimes file" to keep track of the accusations.

Posted by: war crimes | May 21, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign has essentially been threatening the superdelegates with "POLITICAL LYNCHING" if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.


Intimidation is the word that best describs the Obama campaign's approach to the superdelegates.


This is one reason why so many superdelegates do not want to commit, they actually want to avoid a public endorsement.


How else can one view this situation as nothing other than RACIST.


Hillary is at a racial disadvantage. This coming from a campaign that was supposed to be "post-racial" - a campaign theme we all know now is nothing more than a complete FRAUD.

*************************************

Not a bad set of points here - the situation is this: if you point out that the Obama campaign is out of bounds, they start calling you a racist.

Such pathetic little scum.

.

Posted by: Envelope Please | May 21, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Statistically, the categories you created overlap--white voter income less than $50,000 is counted again in another category as non-college educated rural voter, etc. There is nothing different in the message or program between Clinton or Obama for this demographic in these Southern, Appalachian states.

Posted by: Bill | May 21, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse


Chris:

I don't think that the results from Kentucky or W. VA will impact the General election in the fall the way the pundits are focusing on their exit polling from those Primaries.

Obama has created a new paradigm for running for President - view his fundraising machine (which Clinton could have had from the beginning, had she hired Joe Trippi who strongly recommended it in his interview with her before it all began).

Why do the pundits believe that the new paradigm ONLY extends to fundraising and NOT to the electoral map for the fall?

The Obama's 50 State strategy/paradigm has put OTHER states that are considered "swing" states in play for the General.

Obama has hired Interns to register MORE new voters over this summer and extend & build upon the base of Democratic Party to put into play in the fall for the General election and perhaps, for years to come (if voting trends/loyalties are maintained).

In the fall, the General Election will be won on ISSUES, like Iraq and its connection to the demise of our ECONOMY.

IMO, many of these voters will vote for their economic security - new and secure Green jobs, rebuilding our nation both domestically and abroad.

I would appreciate a column from you, Chris asking why McCain is only receiving approximately 75% of the Republican vote in each of the last few primaries....WHAT does that say about the election in the fall?????

Posted by: Dari | May 21, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

To the posters on this board who simply harass and mock other posters:


This board is for discussion


Make your points and support them.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign has essentially been threatening the superdelegates with "POLITICAL LYNCHING" if the superdelegates do not vote for Obama.

Intimidation is the word that best describs the Obama campaign's approach to the superdelegates.

This is one reason why so many superdelegates do not want to commit, they actually want to avoid a public endorsement.

How else can one view this situation as nothing other than RACIST.

Hillary is at a racial disadvantage. This coming from a campaign that was supposed to be "post-racial" - a campaign theme we all know now is nothing more than a complete FRAUD.

.

Posted by: The Truth | May 21, 2008 8:04 AM | Report abuse

So your "proof" is to repeat the charge, again without a citation backing it up. Stellar logic there. "Obama is a racist because he's a racist!" Of course!

Posted by: Sleeper | May 21, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse


Hello President McCain

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

It is true that the Superdelegates have been harassed and threatened that the black community would be "offended" if the superdelegates did not go with Obama.


Hillary's people mean nothing.

This argument, which has been advanced by the Obama campaign, is essentially racist. It is a form of race baiting the superdelegates - saying oh, you better avoid a racial incident that is going to harm the whites more than the blacks.


Charge made.

Charge sticks.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

I have learned in my life that the first refuge of a liar is to call someone else a liar.


When that does not work, a liar asks for proof


Especially when the facts are well known to everyone.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse


Chris


Im sorry the adjustments which I meant to describe as rational - my last posting did not include the level of clarity which you have come to expect.


Plus 150,000 to Obama for a portion of the Michigan uncommitteds based on polling because Edwards was still in the race


Plus 50,000 to Hillary for the Washington State primary popular vote as compared to the caucus estimates which have been floating around

Net 100,000 to Obama for these adjustment - so count everything Florida, Michigan and the caucus estimates then give 100,000 more to Obama.

Hillary still wins the POPULAR VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

NOW his campaign is threatening the superdelegates if they do not vote with Obama, they risk "offending" the black community.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 6:50 AM

Citation please? And anonymous flyers someone handed you in the church parking lot don't count.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
You are starting to buy the Clinton argument that the only voters who matter are white, rural, Appalachian, working class voters. From where we sit in Oregon, we think our white state counts too, and we are solidly for Obama. He beats McCain handily here and in Washington State, while these states are still in play if Clinton is the nominee.
Yes, Obama needs to work harder and smarter in Ohio and Pennsylvania to beat McCain, though he also brings several western states and Virginia into play, which Clinton does not.

Posted by: Chuck | May 21, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, you are right.
And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Obama will not win without us, so go ahead and insult us some more.
Idiot.

Posted by: RoBoTech | May 21, 2008 6:37 AM

"I'm voting for 4 more years of war and recession because someone called me out on a blog."

It's fine to prefer one candidate over another. I voted for Clinton myself, about a thousand years ago on Super Tuesday. But to sit and demand that your candidate be nominated or else you'll sell the country out by voting for 4 more years of warmongers is pathetic. And to be proud of voting for someone because the other guy is black, to say that without shame in 2008, is disgusting.

Posted by: Sleeper | May 21, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

This game is over. That Hillary is able to score 3 pointers in the closing moments carries little significants. Look at the republican side. McCain received 72% of the votes in Kentucky and he is the candidate. Shouldn't he be worrying about the 28% he didn't get? In fact Obama received almost 50% more votes than McCain, let's just give Kentucky to him now.
In the end, figures lie and liars figure.

Posted by: vcsmith | May 21, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse


HILLARY CLINCHES POPULAR VOTE MAJORITY


Chris the real headline should be that Hillary has clinched the popular vote majority of the democratic party because she is so far ahead in the projections for Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota.

Obama should be worried about this.

Chris - to be rational, one should add in a portion of the uncommitteds in Michigan for Obama because Edwards was still in the race - giving him 150,000 votes - AND the results of the Washington State popular vote should be used - giving Hillary a credit of 100,000.


With those adjustments HILLARY HAS WON THE POPULAR VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS.

Last night was a massive win for Hillary.

So what if Obama won the pot-smokers in Oregon.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Should the results of Kentucky (and West Virginia) be of concern to Democrats looking to win back the White House in November?

No. Neither of those states are necessary for the Democrats to win in the fall. According to the Real Clear Politics Head to Head Poll averages, Obama leads McCain in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado and is virtually tied in Ohio. And that's without Clinton working her voters for him, without the general election campaign highlighting the difference between those voters and McCain on issues such as health care, the economy and the war. It's easy to draw an electoral map where Obama captures over 300 electoral votes without Kentucky and West Virginia, both of which are Republican states anyway.

Posted by: frb | May 21, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

What should be of more concern is the country not the voters. Who is better suited to indulge the country its needs? That would be Hillary. Who seems better suited to indulge the people? That would be Obama. What is the primary responsibility of the president? The country. We need the country fixed before you can change...whatever it is Obama people seems to think can be changed..."that we can believe in..." What does that mean anyway?? I think what the demographics is saying is that "We want things put back the way they were first." After all that is what this country--the success of this country was built upon. The working class are not as ideologic a.k.a. foolish as the "latte drinkers." We can't afford to gamble and don't have time to wish for that "pie-in-the-sky" called "change." And, since we do our own house cleaning and decorating, we all know that before you can change anything, you have to clean up first! It's a big mistake voting Obama right now. It's not his time. The country will suffer. Yes, they should be concerned with those states and any working-class state or voter.

Posted by: Annette | May 21, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

The Obama's campaign - in telling the superdelegates that it should avoid "offending" the black community - is being RACIST.

Obama is basically running a RACIST campaign.

He will lie and lie and lie again about it too.

Posted by: Truth Teller | May 21, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

NOW Obama's campaign is threatening the superdelegates if they do not vote with Obama, they risk "offending" the black community.


**********


Tell me that is not a RACIST argument.

Posted by: Truth Teller | May 21, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the one who is STEALING the nomination by insisting the superdelegates go against the majority of the voters who voted in the primaries and caucuses.

Obama's campaign went on a crazy plan to PREVENT re-votes in Florida and Michigan.


NOW his campaign is threatening the superdelegates if they do not vote with Obama, they risk "offending" the black community.


Is this anyway to run a political party???

DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE. YOUR COUNTRY'S NATIONAL SECURITY IS AT STAKE.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

One of the dangers of punditry (and the bloggery which feeds on it), is that we look at the latest news, project that on to the future, and decide that November is already settled.

But tomorrow hasn't happened yet. Or the next day, or the next. Here, in mid-May, we're a long way from the 'not-quite-black-enough' Obama vs the front-runner Clinton. That was a whole five months ago. It's still a whole five months to the General.

There's a lot of work to be done between now and November. One of the things that might change things is if Clinton agrees to campaign wholeheartedly for the Democratic candidate.

If she doesn't, I suspect she'd be finished in the party. But, if she does, it would be sensible to aim her at the very people who voted for her in the primaries (and who are said to be suspicious of Obama).

If she can carry a proportion over to Obama (or, at least, persuade them not to vote for McCain), then much of the current worries will be so much hot air.

Of course, if she can't persuade them, then her own credibility will be at issue.

Posted by: strum | May 21, 2008 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Whoops, Sleeper Says
not Jim, in the last post

Posted by: RoBoTech | May 21, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Jim says
"A marriage of short-sighted rural racism and totally self-absorbed boomer narcissism. If they don't get their way they'll just let the country collapse with 4 more years of Bushism. Idiots."

Yeah, you are right.
And there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Obama will not win without us, so go ahead and insult us some more.
Idiot.

Posted by: RoBoTech | May 21, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Republicans October Surprise on Obamas.
video of Michelle Obama railing against whitey in Rev. Jeremiah Wrights church. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/16/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/

a video tape showing Michelle Obama, railing against whitey from the pulpit of racist, anti-US pastor Reverend Wrights church. Larry Johnson, a former Deputy Director in the US State Department.
I now have it from four sources (three who are close to senior
Republicans) that there is video dynamite-Michelle Obama railing against
whitey at Jeremiah Wrights church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright's United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament." when this clip is made public, Obama's star will rise precipitously within leftist circles, but his hope of becoming the next president of the United States will be instantly destroyed.

Perhaps it has something to do with Obama's recent statement urging Republicans to "lay off" his wife, as if Michelle Obama's behavior, provocative statements and high-profile stance during his campaign should somehow be immune from examination and criticism.
Obama's chief political adviser David Alexrod on National Public Radio claimed white working class Democrats barely exist and hardly matter, white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, This is not new, WE don't need or rely solely on those votes.

Obama lost West Virginia by more than 40 points, an enormous fall, voters who went against Obama -- white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees -- don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, places Obama needs to win in a general election. Now we hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became In Kentucky, 8 in 10 Clinton voters... say they'd be Dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee; about 60% of Clinton voters in Oregon said the same. MORE Clinton voters in KY say they'd support John McCain than support Barack Obamapublic. Obama's inability to persuade working-class white voters to back him points to serious problem for him in the presidential election. A large percentage of voters who backed Mrs Clinton said they would not vote for Obama in the presidential race if he becomes the nominee. Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane

Posted by: Michelle Obama against whitey | May 21, 2008 6:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama's problem is that is he is Obama! No substance, no plan..he just wants change. Change without a real plan is totally foolish! YOu can see right through him. I am glad Hillary had the guts to stand up to him, and spar a lot longer with him. We all got to see him for who he is... I will not vote for him, and I hop Hillary runs as an independent!

Posted by: Jim | May 21, 2008 12:50 AM

This is the problem right here. These people are not Democrats. They're Clinton supporters, and their decision starts and ends with voting for her personally. This is why they say they'd rather the Dems lose without her. A marriage of short-sighted rural racism and totally self-absorbed boomer narcissism. If they don't get their way they'll just let the country collapse with 4 more years of Bushism. Idiots.

Posted by: Sleeper | May 21, 2008 5:35 AM | Report abuse

"He will at the least get us the hell out of Arabia"

Who says we should leave? While I don't want soldiers in harms way. I think we should park a base there until the end of time.

Too many bad things going on over there that could spill over to our main streets. Forget about it going back to how it used to be, that's over with...

Posted by: | May 21, 2008 12:45 AM

A majority of the American people say we should leave Iraq. A majority of the Iraqi people say we should leave Iraq. Our occupation is what's feeding the insurgency, the idea that when we leave they'll be coming here to attack us is idiotic. My high school history textbook seems to have omitted how the Viet Cong invaded California in the late 1970s.

Posted by: Sleeper | May 21, 2008 5:28 AM | Report abuse

Drink the Kool-aid much?

Posted by: Amy | May 21, 2008 5:23 AM | Report abuse

--no need to think race is an issue w/just whites, why do you think obama gets 80% of the black vote ? racists on both sides

Posted by: alex | May 21, 2008 12:20 AM

The difference is that most African-Americans say they'll vote for whoever the nominee is. By a wide margin. But Clinton's "rural white voters" say in increasing numbers that they'll never vote for...you know...that kind of person. You know what I mean. One of those people.

ugh.

Posted by: Sleeper | May 21, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

Some of sentiments from Clinton supporters are just unbelievable.

"We can't nominate Obama, because he's unelectable, because I refuse to vote for him. Nominate Hillary because none of Obama's supporters will feel as strongly as I do." In other words, we're white, we can go vote for McCain if we want. Where are the African-Americans going to go? Give us our candidate.

"I feel that Clinton is the strongest and best standard bearer for our party and for Democratic ideals, but if the superdelegates don't hand her the nomination I'll vote for John McCain who is diametrically opposed to everything Democrats stand for." In other words, this has nothing to do with Democratic beliefs and everything to do with re-installing the Clintons.

I was a big fan of both Clintons ten years ago, but they've really put me off this year. The open, unashamed racism from Clintonites in KY and WV has been the last straw. I dread the thought of voting for her this fall.

Posted by: Sleeper | May 21, 2008 5:13 AM | Report abuse

If the delegate math was no big deal as the Clinton camp has been saying in their spin, then why did they even bother campaigning in the primary in the first place? She is still campaigning in this primary and yet says that the results of the primary do not matter.

The objective of the primary is to gain the pledged delegates. If this means nothing, why is she still campaigning hard? On the other hand, if it matters a lot like she is saying, not by her words of course but by her insistence to stay in the race, then she should have acknowledged by now that Obama is the winner. He collected the majority of the pledged delegates so he won.

This woman defies simple logics so much so that it is just scary. I think it is a case of plain stupidity coupled with personal obsession with glory and power.

She is pathological.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has already won New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, W. Virginia and now Kentucky with a thumping majority! If all the pledged and super delegates from these states are given to Hillary whom she rightly deserves, she would be the nominee now.
During their May 31st meeting, the Democratic Party's Rules & Bylaws Committee of 30 members should come to a conclusion regarding the seating of delegates of Michigan and Florida which should be justifiable to all. In Michigan they should give all the 'uncommitted' votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes. In Florida the result should be accepted. Obama's complaint that if he had campaigned in these states, he would have got more votes is not correct. None of the other candidates campaigned there either. He campaigned more vigorously in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania; Indiana spending 3 times more money than Hillary spent and still did not win them.
If Democrats nominate Obama, particularly after the Reverend Wright fiasco, working class whites will flock to McCain and Republican Presidency continues! Republicans will misrule for another term and Hillary will be president in 2012!

Posted by: hcsubbarao | May 21, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Correction: What I meant to say was that the incumbent VICE PRESIDENT Humphrey was the incumbent party's nominee to replace the incumbent President Johnson.

Posted by: charles laffiteau | May 21, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

"My support for Hillary over Obama stems from what I view to be his "loose cannon" policies of meeting with terrorist state leaders"

Can someone explain to me WHY this is such bad idea? Has not talking to foreign leaders EVER accomplished anything?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 21, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama needs only 64 more delegates to win the nomination. Hillary Clinton needs 246. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is black and Hillary Clinton is white. The white person is losing, so, of COURSE, the democratic party is going to meet FOUR DAYS before the end of the contest and change the rules at the last moment so they can take the nomination away from the black man who won and give it to the white person who lost. The Democratic Party: the party of the people, working, hard working people, white people.

Posted by: Anton Bursch | May 21, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama needs only 64 more delegates to win the nomination. Hillary Clinton needs 246. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is black and Hillary Clinton is white. The white person is losing, so, of COURSE, the democratic party is going to meet FOUR DAYS before the end of the contest and change the rules at the last moment so they can take the nomination away from the black man who won and give it to the white person who lost. The Democratic Party: the party of the people, working, hard working people, white people.

Posted by: Anton Bursch | May 21, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

How confident can John McCain be that those less educated working class Democratic voters will vote for an incumbent President's party's nominee when the economy is contracting amid general pessimism about the country's direction and or an unpopular war? History of the 20th century tells us the incumbent party's nominee (either the incumbent president (i.e. H. W. Bush, Carter, Humphrey) or his party's nominee to succeed him (i.e. Stevenson, Cox) ALWAYS loses, often in a landslide that includes substantial losses in Congress for the party trying to retain control of the White House (Harding vs Cox, Reagan vs Carter etc.) If the past is prologue then it would appear John McCain can not count on those Democratic voters providing much help to him in the General Election.

Posted by: charles laffiteau | May 21, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm a lifelong Democrat. My support for Hillary over Obama stems from what I view to be his "loose cannon" policies of meeting with terrorist state leaders, his choice to vote "present" in his own state senate so many times rather than making a clear committed decision and living with that decisions consequences. I'm not a racist. I am for Sen. Clinton because she is more conservative and calculated in her foreign policy approach and she makes a decision and votes her conscience, and as a leader, she lives with that decision. Obama ran a whole campaign on he was against the war in Iraq from the start, but the facts are, the Iraq Democracy would not be standing as it is now if the USA had not liberated it. I'm still with Hill and I honestly believe some Republicans are too.

Posted by: Why Her and Not Him | May 21, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama's "courageous stance on Foreign policy, going against the grain" consisted of one lecture he gave in a left wing college where everybody approved his speech. He was not in the Senate at the time. When he became senator he said he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the senate. He voted for every pro-war legislation since.
I don't know why are you suprized that he is successfull coming from his background, he went to an elite private high school and to elite colleges, he was bound to succeed.

Posted by: Anette | May 21, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

The single greatest factor in the general election will be George W. Bush, not Hillary Clinton's constituency.

So the answer to your question, Chris, is simply no.

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | May 21, 2008 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Who can win in November? I you look at the results of the battleground states of the last 4 presidential elections on a county basis, Hillary wins in the Republican counties & loses Democratic counties .Either she has a bipartisan appeal or she was fishing in shallow waters . My suspicion is the latter & Obama's ability to recruit new voters will be the deciding factor. The electoral map will look much the same but the results in the Democratic landslide counties will be massive

Posted by: robert | May 21, 2008 2:54 AM | Report abuse

They didn't say they wouldn't vote for a black person, they said race played a role in their decision. Don't tell me that race didn't play a role in the 90% black vote..
Why do you have to paint everybody a racist who prefers Hillary?
It is the same tactic that Bush used claiming everybody who is not "with them" is unpatriotic.

Posted by: Anette | May 21, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

There are true democrats here and there are pretenders. Someone who is calling the 90% of blacks who voted for Obama racist, is either lacking intelligence or a conniving republican. Same holds true for any Obama "supporter" who comes to dismiss all white folks supporting Clinton as racists or uneducated. Let me be clear, I am an early Obama supporter, and very proud of the campaign he has run, but I also believe there are sincere people on all sides, which we should try to bring together, in order to win in November.

The black folks who are supporting Obama now, were all for Hillary and Bill until a few months ago. The blacks who are voting 90% for Obama in all likelihood would come and vote for a white Democratic canditate, as they have done several times. They vote for who they think better represents them. That is not racism.
However, when in exit polls there are clear answers by about 25% of white electorate that they would not vote for a black person- that is racism. There is no hiding from that. That obviously does not mean that all her support is based on race, but to ignore it or cover it up by calling black folks racist, is a peril at our own risk.

I am reminded of an interview John Edwards gave before any of the primaries started where he simply stated that any person who supported him because they either did not want to support a black person or a woman, was not a person whose support who wanted. I think that should be the nature of our democratic party.

For those who say he is all rhetoric and no substance, look at the campaign he has run, coming from nowhere. Look at what he tried to do after exiting Law school. Look at his courageous stance on Foreign policy, going against the grain (that is what convinced me to side with him). Barack did not win because he is black (as suggested by Ferraro), he won depsite him being so. He did not win because of just hope, but the fact that he kept on hope, despie coming from a background that he did. People who are supportive of him, are supportive of those traits in his nature, which we believe should be true of the United States.

Look, Barack is winning fair and square by rules agreed amongst all parties PRIOR to teh primaries. It is time for folks who buy into the Democrtaic party rules, to recognize this and unite around our candidate. If after looking at his positions or record you are not satisfied, go vote for McCain. Don't waste your time throwing vitriol- you hardly convince anyone.

Am I absolutely sure that he just will be a fantastic President? No, no one can be. Will he make mistakes? You Bet. But he is someone whom you can have an honest conversation, even if you have a disgareement. He is surely the only leader who has laid out the most sane policy statements, has shown sagacity, and inspired us beyond our own little worlds.

And for that I do hope and pray he is.

Posted by: Sid | May 21, 2008 2:45 AM | Report abuse

For the record,

Obama and Hillary both have substance. I have said this one hundred times. Both candidates bring a lot to the table. CHANGE may seem like an intangible to many. It's not exactly a policy platform.

However, if you were to study Obama's history you will see that people tend to migrate towards.

He has a way with people that he works with that is inclusive.

Again, I say study the history. It is there if you really want to know it.

Hillary comes from the world of fighting and doggedness. Very effective and in many cases gets results.

In todays environment, I like Obama's approach better.We are on the edge of a great plateau, and we need a leader who is both eloquent and thoughtful and not a bully.

Both candidates are amazing, I simply think Obama will be able to do more.

Posted by: Vance McDaniel | May 21, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

"And what about the 90 percent of blacks that will only vote for a black candidate. What does that say about black voters? Are they racist against a white woman?"

Wow, what a stupid, stupid comment. Even worse than the Ferraro inanity. Because its not like black people have EVER voted for a white candidate, right?

God, how can people be so ignorant of history?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 21, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

KHayes,

Nobody is talking about the problem that Clinton would have with black voters because everybody recognizes that Clinton is not the nominee. Why waste time on hypotheticals that aren't going to happen anyway?

Posted by: blert | May 21, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

interesting and relevant to your question...tonight on msnbc,some interesting percentages came up, in doing their number crunching magic with wva and ky...it's 2004...democrats turning from kerry to bush were the same percentage as those interviewed in exit polls of said states, regarding obama to mccain.

..good news being that the loss is not neccessarily endemic of rascism, but rather a cultural issue...the bad news, obviously, being that they are lost democrats.

..buuuuuuuuuut...in the bigger picture, there are more than one or two ways to skin a cat, so to speak...given the huge afro-american turnout in the south, this may very well shift said states from red to blue...and mccain had a tough time in michigan.

..nickel version, obama may very well give mccain a run for his money with independents...huge new voter registration of democrats...afro-american support...all good for obama.

in short, "no" to your question...i think we may see the "status quo" map of the past change a bit...

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | May 21, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

If Obama makes inroads along Appalachia cutting some of those deficits down to 15 points -- he wins the general election in a landslide.

As things currently stand he's still well positioned to make a GE run.

It's also worth point out that Michigan is not eastern Ohio or Western PA.

It may be working class in parts, but if you look at numbers in rural counties along MI's border with Indiana and Ohio the margins are closer to 10-15 point deficits -- not the 40 to 80 point margins that have shown up along parts of the Appalachian ridge this election.

Posted by: JP2 | May 21, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

84% of African Americans voted for Bill Clinton (the first black president). As late as January, many were not sure Obama was black enough. Obviously, Obama did not "win" the black vote, Hillary simply "lost" it.

On the other hand, the biggest difference between blue-collar whites in Kentucky vs. Oregon is "Conservative DEMs vs. Liberal DEMs" NOT skin color or even education or income.

"Conservative" means "resistant to change" No wonder.

Posted by: Young Atheart | May 21, 2008 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Hillary carries the redneck vote, and allof a sudden Obama has a problem with "working class white voters?" Enough already! If Hillary were such a powerhouse among whites, she would have wrapped up the nomination months ago.

Posted by: Miande | May 21, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

"Wny do Obama supporters love to throw around the word "educated" as if it means anything? A college degree is not an indicator of intelligence or good leadership! Just remember that George W. Bush holds degrees from both Yale and Harvard, making him more "educated" than most Obama supporters."

Of course Bill Gates is smarter than George Bush, but if you take several thousand college grads vs several thousand people who aren't college educated, who would you ask for medical opinions, financial opinions, current events, or even what movie to watch that weekend?

So which group do you think is more informed as to what's going on? Which group do you think keeps up with what each campaign has done? Which group do you think knows the popular vote argument is nonsense?

I might be wrong, but I'll take my chances with the college educated crowd.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 21, 2008 2:08 AM | Report abuse

What is all the noise about Obama? McCain got only 72% of the vote in Kentucky, 10,000 people came and voted for "uncommitted". I don't think Obama has much to worry about. He is still outraising McCain, and Hillary is still in the race. After she moves on with her life, Obama's fundraising will only go higher.

Posted by: Gerard | May 21, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Maybe if Obama wore some white-skin colored makeup the voters in WV and KY would recognize him as a viable candidate. Of course someone would still have to tie their shoes and wipe their @sses for them before they went to the polls...

Posted by: self sycophant | May 21, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

I think it's interesting how there is such a hub-bub over Obama not carrying working-class white people of a certain geographic region yet no one ever mentions the fall-out that would happen with black voters nation-wide were there to be a Clinton up-set. I know Dems take black voters for granted but I think there would be a whole lot more angry people out there if somehow Obama lost the nomination because super-delegates decided he couldn't carry the working-class white vote in a certain geographic area that's often red anyway or because the committee handling Florida/Michigan decided to shake things up. Perhaps you think there is discontent in the party now...

Plus just like others have said: Oregon has lots of working-class white people. And it's been a swing state.

This primary will end, and there will be angry feelings one way or the other. Why? Because people have had time to take ownership in the race and become passionate for a candidate. Usually later voting states don't get any say at all. Because more people nation-wide were able to take-part they will be more committed come November and actually vote. Some will be turned-off because their person didn't win the primary, more will be engaged who otherwise wouldn't have been because they got to participate in the primary at all.

Posted by: KHayes | May 21, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

People, people. We're talking about freakin' Kentucky and West Virginia here.

Pennsylvania will go Democrat. Ohio will go if Clinton campaigns there for Obama. Florida is a lost cause. Octogenarian white voters will not vote for a black man, period.

Obama needs to win Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, and Colorado. All doable. He could also conceivably pick up Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Stop panicking. Democrats are such wimps.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the racist voters who support Obama.90%of black voters support Obama.If he was white how many of those would have voted for him?

Posted by: Andrew O'Donnell | May 21, 2008 1:34 AM

If Clinton were black, how many of those uneducated white folk would have voted for her?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

I thnk Obama is a very likeable person--something I can't say about Clinton. Also, he presents himself as an independent thinker, not someone whose value depends on his bank account. Also, he knew from the beginning of the Iraq War that that war, as most wars, was caused by a complete failure in communication between parties. Obama will be better able to prevent a expensive and unnecessary war by his gift to speaking clearly and diplomatically.

Posted by: sa6831 | May 21, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

I thnk Obama is a very likeable person--something I can't say about Clinton. Also, he presents himself as an independent thinker, not someone whose value depends on his bank account. Also, he knew from the beginning of the Iraq War that that war, as most wars, was caused by a complete failure in communication between parties. Obama will be better able to prevent a expensive and unnecessary war by his gift to speaking clearly and diplomatically.

Posted by: sa6831 | May 21, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

By the way what is a Juggernaut? Was it in West Virginia or in Kentucky?How do I recognize one?

Posted by: Andy | May 21, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the racist voters who support Obama.90%of black voters support Obama.If he was white how many of those would have voted for him?

Posted by: Andrew O'Donnell | May 21, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, and then the hippies will spike the East River with LSD. The world will come crashing down. You don't have to fear Republicans. This pastor thing is for children. Take a chance. I'd rather be dangerous. Safe always loses. Besides, if Hillary Clinton can't beat Barack Obama, this terrible candidate her campaign claims, then aren't your chances as dubious as Obama's?

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

As to Obama's incompetence, he came from the secondary position in January to overtake the frontrunner within a few months. For a new kid in town he learns fast. I wouldn't assume that pinheads win battles always over people who are smarter then them, as that fights inertia, and not all people choose their candidate based on network T.V. :P

Sure Clinton has well educated voters, but many educated people are opinionated, it doesn't mean they are right, or that Obama's people are all dumb. Just because you can find people who buck the trends, that doesn't amount to a persuasive argument.

Education and insight are distinct variables, not perfectly coorelated. We all have our views and we all have our blind spots and if we were all knowing we wouldn't be human. Of course, that doesn't mean that there is not blindness in conformity, but it is a bit presumptive to believe everyone who agrees with a stated opinion is brainwashed. To separate out opinions from policy, we vote, that's why we live in a democracy. :P

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Gee, a bunch of uneducated, white folks won't vote for a black man. Shocking. Move along now.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

We love this country too much to vote for obama, we will never settle for someone like him. His rev has destroyed his chances of becoming a president of anything.
The IRS has already started an investigation of his church and when thats done he will be exiting the race post haste.

Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Kenonwenu:

Bill Clinton carried both Kentucky and West Virginia twice, and -- correction -- Kerry lost South Carolina by a wider margin than West Virginia.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

This Hillary write in thing is for nine year olds. I graduated from college, too, but I also learned in eighth grade that voting against my own economic-interest is counterproductive. Vote for Kucinich or Nader if you're going to write-in. Or, Debs, EUGENE V. DEBS!


Debs '08

Nah, just vote for Obama and stop being a child.

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Ok clarity, race-baiting, again. I checked your numbers you are wrong of course, its 19 percent.
And what about the 90 percent of blacks that will only vote for a black candidate. What does that say about black voters? Are they racist against a white woman?
So, clarity I don't think you want to go down the race road.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

its all fubar and theres no way out. go with obama and loose, or go with hillary and have riots. there's the choices you dems have.

vote for michael moore instead!

Posted by: fubar | May 21, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

53% of Hillary's Kentucky supporters --according to a CNN exit poll said they would not vote for Obama because of race.

This stat is the only relevant one of the night. Chris, your stats are placed here to mask what this race to the demo nomination has been about from day one,
Let's talk about race baby, let's talk about you and me let's talk about all the good and bad things America believes, let's talk about it!

Posted by: clarity2 | May 21, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

"This Wilsonian internationalism, which President Bush has adopted, is hardly sustainable."

Right on the nose, but I don't think this is a door that can be shut anymore...

Kuwait is probably the lesser of all evils.

(nameless), I also fear that the right wing in America and the right wing in Israel have got to be checked. Their power has grown extraordinarily over the past eight years. Jimmy Carter talks to Syrians and he's a bad guy? Israel and Egypt share a peaceful border, as they also do with Jordan. So, whether we like it or not, we need to reach some sort of two state solution with the Israelis and Palestinians. We can't keep ignoring this question, we must reach a more peaceful understanding with the Middle East.

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Right in Hillary, their are plans already under way for that... great idea!!!

Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Obama failed to break double digits in 18 Kentucky counties and an entire congressional district. He fell below 7.5% in nine counties. He is going to run behind Bob Barr in Eastern Kentucky, if not all of Appalachia.

Only today's Democrats could fail to take the White House while 81% think the country is headed down the tubes and they are outspending the opposition 2-1. The oldest opposition in history.

Posted by: Threedy | May 21, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

53% of Hillary's Kentucky supporters --according to a CNN exit poll said they would not vote for Obama because of race.

This stat is the only relevant one of the night. Chris, your stats are placed here to mask what this race to the demo nomination has been about from day one,
Let's talk about race baby, let's talk about you and me let's talk about all the good and bad things America believes, let's talk about it!

Posted by: clarity2 | May 21, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

M and M right on, we are college-educated Clinton supporters too. We see right through the nothingness of the obama campaign. I am proud that voters all over the country can also see through this character and I will proudly stand with them any day over the nasty people obama attracts.
Btw, the huge crowd in oregon was a result of the free concert being given by a very popular rock band, not the desire to see obama as the media would like us to believe.

Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

as independent leaning democrat, I am highly disappointed in the dysfunctionally chaotic democratic party pulling by interests from all sides and easily manipulated by media with phobia of having a smart woman in the office. USA-Today reported we are now over 60 trillion in liabilities as a nation which means each one of us is over $500,000 in debt. Most of the media pundits focused on was Hillary's personality and the nation got brainwashed and picked an inexperience Obama. Well, good luck, I bet we'll be further down the debt hole with this guy who has no idea, no experience but talk. Talk is cheap. Come November, I'll just write in Hillary's name and I hope she run independent.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

I don't get it. When Clinton talks about winning Kentucky or West Virginia for the Democrats, everybody takes her seriously. But when Obama talks about taking South or North Carolina, everybody laughs and says it'll never happen. Kentucky and W.Va voted GOP by bigger margins last election than South and North Carolina did.

Obama has a better chance of winning the Carolinas than Hillary does of winning these hardworking hillfolk. And the Carolinas have more electoral college votes.

Posted by: kenonwenu | May 21, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Nari, if this is just a waste of time why are you reading and writing on the blogs.

Maybe you are just one of the 4000 bloggers Obama has hired to sit at their computers and respond to these posts.

As usual out of touch of the real people.

Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

We are surprised by the emphasis on college educated vs working class voters in these outcomes. As a couple with several graduate degrees between us, we came down pretty conclusively for Senator Clinton after repeatedly observing Obama's poor debating skills. We expected to be inclined to prefer Obama, but it was just so obvious that Clinton was much better prepared and more experienced. Perhaps the working class folks are smarter than they are being given credit for and the knee jerk liberalism of the - especially younger - more privileged classes affects their ability to think critically.

M and M
San Francisco

Posted by: markl | May 21, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

"This Wilsonian internationalism, which President Bush has adopted, is hardly sustainable."

Right on the nose, but I don't think this is a door that can be shut anymore...

Kuwait is probably the lesser of all evils.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

You're just another republican. Writers like you should jump off a cliff.

Posted by: lolz | May 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

To those, and you know who you are that say Obama can't win without WV. Well guess what. This is not 1980, John McCain is not Reagan, and Obama is not Dukakis.

So let it go. You think we should pander to the KKK? Is that what the Democrats stand for.

Sorry. I would rather see McCain President then pick the white person to appease the trailer park racists.

And BTW. I think I remember when the primary started Obama was down to Hillary by forty points.

So I am really scared by Hillary's Rove Math.

Posted by: Ken | May 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama has a people problem.Not only with white working glass but with his own supporters.They keep saying stupid white trash vote for Hillary.But the true stupid people are Baraks supporters.For even us uneducated stupid white trash knows he'll need us in November.

Posted by: ya'll Ohio | May 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

"* Among non-college educated whites in Kentucky (66 percent of the electorate), Clinton won by 44 points -- 69 percent to 25 percent.

* Among whites with a family income less than $50,000, Clinton received 75 percent of the vote while Obama took just 22 percent."


Is that the demographic we want choosing our next wave of leadership? This is much more of a positive for Obama than a negative. I am happy to see that the better educated and more successful citizens of our country understand that we need real, tangible change. NOT more of the same tired political tactics in Washington.

Posted by: rbullerwell087 | May 21, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

With this many comments for each Political discussion, does anyone read these comments? What a waste of time?

It's like the sound of a tree falling in the forest. There's no one to hear them!

Posted by: Nari Kannan | May 21, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

There is no comparison between Clinton and McCain. When confronted with a choice between 4 more years of disastrous Republican mis-rule or change, those voters will vote for a change. Anyone who argues differently is either needs to sow divisiveness or is a Republican spinner. No Republican is going to win the White House in '08. Obama will get the nomination because of the math, the energy and his grasp of the future. Obama will be the next POTUS.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 21, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

"Who says we should leave? While I don't want soldiers in harms way. I think we should park a base there until the end of time.

Too many bad things going on over there that could spill over to our main streets. Forget about it going back to how it used to be, that's over with..."

I disagree (nameless). I'm in favor of a timely withdrawal over the course of, say, 30 months? I think that's the best way to go. I'd grudgingly go along with a presence in the more "friendly" Kuwait. Come home and protect the mainland, and the border for Lou Dobbs. This Wilsonian internationalism, which President Bush has adopted, is hardly sustainable. Americans don't like it. Isolationists are a multifaceted, ecelectic blend, my friend. We just need to divorce ourselves from the region. Get off the oil!!!!

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

To answer Cillizza's question, no, I am not greatly concerned. Every election is a choice. Right now, it appears certain voters prefer and are choosing Clinton over Obama. But come November, if Obama is the nominee, they will face a second choice between Obama and McCain. While he exit polls show some may make McCain their second choice, after Clinton, these surveys are being taken in the heat of a hotly contested campaign while feelings are still raw. There is no reason to believe in several months, when tempers cool and they weigh their next choice why they will not support Obama. First. they have self-identified as Democrats. Second, if they like Clinton's policies they will like Obama's as they are nearly identical. Third, Clinton has pledged to work to bring her supporters into the Obama fold if she is not the nominee. Fourth, right now, many are angry because they perceive their favored candidate being attacked unfairly; when the GOP launch what will inevitably be some vicious broadsides against Obama, I believe they will rally to his cause because we often identify ourselves more by who our mutual enemies are than by our mutual friends. Four-fifths of Americans think our nation is on the wrong track. McCain represents that wrong track. Obama, if he is the nominee, will win more than 300 electoral votes. You can bank on it.

Posted by: Scott | May 21, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Chris you are totally right! The MSM has no idea how angry the core dems are about the DNC shoving this idiot down our throats. They want to dismiss the votes by calling the voters names which only makes them angrier and dislike obama more. We are not stupid we can see that the election has been stolen by a big no body who has done absolutely nothing to earn our respect or paid his dues in the dem party. He is just a puppet that the big guys can manipulate for the next four years. Well you guys are in for a big surprise, and every vote from now til nov. is a big slap in your face, its a message, we don't like you and we will not vote for the so-called annointed one.

Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2008 12:53 AM | Report abuse

To answer Cillizza's question, no, I am not greatly concerned. Every election is a choice. Right now, it appears certain voters prefer and are choosing Clinton over Obama. But come November, if Obama is the nominee, they will face a second choice between Obama and McCain. While he exit polls show some may make McCain their second choice, after Clinton, these surveys are being taken in the heat of a hotly contested campaign while feelings are still raw. There is no reason to believe in several months, when tempers cool and they weigh their next choice why they will not support Obama. First. they have self-identified as Democrats. Second, if they like Clinton's policies they will like Obama's as they are nearly identical. Third, Clinton has pledged to work to bring her supporters into the Obama fold if she is not the nominee. Fourth, right now, many are angry because they perceive their favored candidate being attacked unfairly; when the GOP launch what will inevitably be some vicious broadsides against Obama, I believe they will rally to his cause because we often identify ourselves more by who our mutual enemies are than by our mutual friends. Four-fifths of Americans think our nation is on the wrong track. McCain represents that wrong track. Obama, if he is the nominee, will win more than 300 electoral votes. You can bank on it.

Posted by: Scott | May 21, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama's problem is that is he is Obama! No substance, no plan..he just wants change. Change without a real plan is totally foolish! YOu can see right through him. I am glad Hillary had the guts to stand up to him, and spar a lot longer with him. We all got to see him for who he is... I will not vote for him, and I hop Hillary runs as an independent!

Posted by: Jim | May 21, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Not an issue at all.
a) Democrats will be campaigning against Republicans in these states in the fall, not against each other. The difference will be stark by that time.

b) Democrats do not need to win ANY of these states for a majority in the electoral college. The two coasts (WA, OR, CA and NC and north, plus the states that Kerry won in 2004 (minus PA) and it's over. President Obama.

Posted by: 33rdSt | May 21, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

isabella: The last Dem to be elected POTUS Without winning WV was 1916. Another little Quirky thing about WV is that in 2000 Gore would have been elected if he had won WV. The answer to the question is a resounding YES! I see no way for Obama to win any of these five critical states, Ky., WV, Pa., Fla., and Ohio. The way things look, at this time, McCain will be the winner.

Posted by: lylepink | May 21, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

To answer Cillizza's question, no, I am not greatly concerned. Every election is a choice. Right now, it appears certain voters prefer and are choosing Clinton over Obama. But come November, if Obama is the nominee, they will face a second choice between Obama and McCain. While he exit polls show some may make McCain their second choice, after Clinton, these are being taken in the heat of a hotly contested campaign. There is no reason to believe in several months, when tempers cool and they weigh their next choice why they will not support Obama. First. they have self-identified as Democrats. Second, if they like Clinton's policies they will like Obama's as they are nearly identical. Third, Clinton has pledged to work to bring her supporters into the Obama fold if she is not the nominee. Fourth, right now, many are angry because they perceive their favored candidate being attacked unfairly; when the GOP launch what will inevitably be some vicious broadsides against Obama, I believe they will rally to his cause because we often identify ourselves more by who our mutual enemies are than by our mutual friends. Four-fifths of Americans think our nation is on the wrong track. McCain represents that wrong track. Obama, if he is the nominee, will win more than 300 electoral votes. You can bank on it.

Posted by: Scott | May 21, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Chris you are exactly right! Obama's people are trying to ignore the elephant in the room and no amount of name calling can stop the deluge of dem voters who will leave the party.
The media is so out of touch they don't have any idea how angry the core dems are about obama being shoved down our throats. Its gore, kerry, dukakis, mcgovern all over again. DNC will never learn their lesson.

Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

No worries. It's still early, and these are not the core group of Obama's voters. The people who are not voting for Obama in places like Kentucky and West Virginia are unlikely to cost him the general election, because they are not going to be enough to offset the major electoral advantage he has in solidly blue states and in the swing states he puts into play. As someone who grew up in KY and now lives in NC, I think it's interesting to note the effect on voting of regional differences in temperament - and of "demographics," although I'm not sure that's always a sociologically apt descriptor as it's used by the press. Kentucky has grown a lot more conservative over the past twenty or so years, consolidating a trend toward "red state" voting through demographic as well as ideological shifts. Just anecdotally, I can say that few of my "college educated, white middle class, 30 something" peers still live in Kentucky. Regardless of our family backgrounds, those of us who could "get out" did. I *love* Kentucky, so it pains me to say this, but I just don't think Obama needs to spend a lot of time worrying about losing in the state. I would really like to see him win. I hope that the campaign does put some real effort into reaching out to voters there. And I hope that voters throughout Appalachia are open to Obama's message. But ultimately, these have not been traditional Democratic strongholds for quite a while, and they are not areas where any Dem would focus the bulk of a campaign's strategic resources in the general election. It's just not a Dem crowd. Hopefully, that will have changed by 2012, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the fall regardless of the nominee.

On the other hand, Obama has a real shot at turning a state like North Carolina "blue" in this general election. Like, now. And for real. No hypotheticals. This state has grown tremendously in the last decade, overtaking NJ as the 10th largest US state in 2006, and on course to pass GA and MI within the next 10 or 15 years. The growth here has primarily been in the same demographic categories that KY has bled - and the same demographic categories that overwhelmingly support Obama (as evidenced by our primary): college-educated, middle class, white, younger, etc.

Kentucky and West Virginia combine for 13 electoral votes. North Carolina alone has 15. Simple mathematics. Why stress *two* "red states" when you've got a "purple state" in the bag?

Posted by: thisniss | May 21, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

"He will at the least get us the hell out of Arabia"

Who says we should leave? While I don't want soldiers in harms way. I think we should park a base there until the end of time.

Too many bad things going on over there that could spill over to our main streets. Forget about it going back to how it used to be, that's over with...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

It could well be that this election will mark the final exodus of a certain type of Democrat that's been gradually drifting away from the party since the 1960s. A *few* older, disgruntled women who believe that mysogyny is the sole reason behind Hillary's defeat may also depart. But I believe strongly that new voters being brought into the Democratic column by the Obama campaign will greatly exceed those heading out the door.

And this gets to the problem of many so-called analyses we've been seeing regarding Obama's chances in November. They're inevitably based on the premise of old coalitions and old voting patterns. And yes, old in this case means almost everything prior to 2005. America is changing right beneath us. Yet in being carried along with this transformation, it's apparently difficult for some of us to even notice.

Posted by: Jim | May 21, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of all these "hurt my feelings" voters. We just witnessed a few. Listen, I'm middle class and white, too, but I also don't vote for or against candidates who "hurt my feelings." You don't have to be comfortable with Barack Obama. We're not going to Prom with him this January. Obama is simply a smarter guy than McCain, and he'll appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will protect Roe v. Wade and equal rights; he will at the least get us the hell out of Arabia, and close Guantanamo Bay; he will at the least seek energy independence via alternative energies like wind, solar, and cellulosic ethanal (i.e. wood chips, and the fat grease that fast food joints dump out). So, stop this hurt my feelings nonsense. If you're a Democratic Hillary Clinton supporter, I'm sorry. But voting for John McCain is not a wise decision, it's a retarded one. this is like when children are angry with their parents and refuse to eat or talk or something. Stop huffing and puffing. None of these candidates is the real deal, anyway, but Obama is the guy. Step up to the plate, and do the right thing: Support him! And again, stop all this my feelings are hurt. Because frankly, it's all begun to hurt my feelings.

New York City Secession 2010

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

When did Appaliacia become the center of American political import--much less the center of the Democratic party?

Several Appalacian states clustered their primaries in close proximity, so we've been hearing from them the past several weeks. OK, Obama is weak in Appalacia. What a shock. And by the way, Hillary would never do well there in Novemeber anyway.

It's a farce.

And Chris, KY and WV as rustbelt states? These are hardly the industrial Midwest. That's just silly.

Posted by: Dave Cullen | May 21, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama should have campaigned in West Virginia and Kentucky with some White Lightning and a guitar, the better to duet with any inbred, banjo-wielding savants he would come across.

Posted by: TheTruth | May 21, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

When did Appaliacia become the center of American political import--much less the center of the Democratic party?

Several Appalacian states clustered their primaries in close proximity, so we've been hearing from them the past several weeks. OK, Obama is weak in Appalacia. What a shock. And by the way, Hillary would never do well there in Novemeber anyway.

It's a farce.

And Chris, KY and WV as rustbelt states? These are hardly the industrial Midwest. That's just silly.

Posted by: Dave Cullen | May 21, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Bush won Kentucky by 20 points in 2004, and W. Virginia by 13 points.

Kerry was never going to win either of these states, but if he'd won Ohio, he would have been president. Obama either needs to win Ohio, or pick off two or three out of Virginia, New Mexico, the Carolinas, Mississipi, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri. That's assuming he loses Florida and wins Mich and Penn.

Both Obama and HRC, however, look on course to lose New Hampshire, which continues its McCain love fest.

Hillary also continues to slide alarmingly in California, and actually looks liek she could even be overtaken by McCain there! Obama's California lead over McCain is stable.

I think that if the election were held today, Obama would take several of these states: Virginia, New Mexico, the Carolinas, Iowa, Nevada. With the Dem primary over, he'll get stronger. Obama's numbers are generally rising now and McCain's are dipping.

Posted by: OD | May 21, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

At first I thought that Cilizza had returned to his Shillizza ways, carrying water unapologetically for the Clinton camp. On second reading, however, I realize that this is satire of the highest order, worthy of Swift and Twain.

Imagine, trying to convince the country that you are the best for the job because you have locked up the support of the most uncouth, laziest, ignorant part of the electorate. What a joke. Hillary can have her high school gym full of hillbillies and toothless grins. Let's see how much love and attention she shows Appalachia after Obama kicks her to the junkpile.

Bravo to The Fix for hoisting the Clinton camp on its own petard.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 21, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

There is virtually no chance that KY is going to go Democratic in November. So, all this talk about what the results in KY mean is really quite pointless. Neither candidate will make the state turn blue.

Also, there are lots of generalizations being made by both camps (but primarily the Clinton one) about how the results from the primaries/caucuses are somehow indicative of how the general election will go. The primary/caucus results are important data points, to be sure, but the general election is a whole different kettle of fish. Failure to acknowledge this fact is naive.

Posted by: glowing_plasma | May 21, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

I resent the fact you are putting Ohio in a category with Kentucky and West Virginia. Obama has an Appalachian mountain problem. Not a 'white working class' problem.

As MSNBC said tonight...it isn't demographic it is geographic. The exits from Oregon and Kentucky/WV show this.

SUSA polling shows Obama up by 8 over McCain in Pennsylvania with Hillary still in the race no less. Ohio he is trailing by a few points. Ohio and Florida are going to be the battleground states. Obama doesn't necessarily need those to win, but if he wins one of them he is assured of the nomination while also putting NH, NM, Virginia, Iowa, Alaska, and Colorado among others in play while making the GOP/RNC/McCain spend money they don't have on their home turf in expensive Georgia and Texas media markets to name a few.

Hillary is also assured of the nomination, but only if she wins both Florida and Michigan while not dropping in Obama's battlegrounds.

The democratic party's choice is if they want a 2000/2004 nail biter with Clinton or a risk/reward proposition with Obama in terms of down ballot races all over the country.

Clinton going into the general election $25 million in debt is also a VERY VERY big deal.

I think the dynamics of the race change dramatically once Hillary drops out of race and people really have to choose between McCain and Obama or Bush and a democrat. Watch a 2 week period immediately following Hillary's exit that shows a McCain bump and then Obama surging ahead as people come to grips with 4 more years of Bush.

If the democrats nominate an Obama/Hillary ticket...the race is over. They will win in a walk.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by: Brian | May 21, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Wny do Obama supporters love to throw around the word "educated" as if it means anything? A college degree is not an indicator of intelligence or good leadership! Just remember that George W. Bush holds degrees from both Yale and Harvard, making him more "educated" than most Obama supporters.

Posted by: Tirade | May 21, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Chris -- The results in WV and KY (total electoral votes: 13) don't signal problems for Obama in the bigger states of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (total electoral votes: 58).

The two most recent polls from PA (Survey USA and Quinnipiac) have Obama leading McCain by 8 and 9 points. Ohio and Michigan are toss-ups in the horse-race polls.

And this is with the Dems still divided, and with Obama having not campaigned in Michigan. As the party unites behind him, Obama stands a very good chance of sweeping those three states.

Plus, as others have noted, he runs stronger in the Upper Midwest and Mountain West than Hillary and recent Democrats have, more than offsetting any weakness in KY and WV.

Posted by: Ann Arbor | May 21, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

The message that the Obama campaign, the DNC, and the Democratic elite should be getting is that middle-class Democrats have not been happy with Barack Obama bashing and outright lying about the Clinton administration earlier on. They also have a problem with Michelle Obama's attitude towards America and white people versus "black power" and "black identity."

Also, they have have been extremely unhappy with the obvious media bias against her favoring Barack Obama during this campaign. They have noticed the sexist and degrading remarks while continue seeing Barack Obama get a free pass for the most part.

They believe experience is more important compared to being able to give a good speech. They want a fighter like Hillary Clinton and feel that Obama is being forced down their throats.

They have serious concerns with his judgment, particularly in the case of the kind of church he has attended for the past 20 years even though his pastor was preaching the divisive sermons he preached.

If they can't get over these issues, then they will end up punishing the DNC and the Democratic elite by voting for McCain. They know that a McCain presidency will be far more mild compared to Bush because McCain will be forced to deal with and compromise with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 21, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

"Why do Democracts always have to worry about who is the most electable? The Republicans certainly didn't worry about that when they nominated George W. Bush who couldn't even when the popular vote in 2000."

He stole the first election with the help of the supreme court, and we were at war during the second election. Americans (and people in general) don't like to switch leaders in times of war.

Electing a guy for president just because he's different is a terrible premise for choosing a leader.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Could it be that everyone calling people "racist" for voting for the more qualified Clinton are, in fact the ones that are stereotyping and discriminating against people who are not professional or college educated like them? Or is everyone who lives like Dan and Rosanne a card carrying KKK member? Maybe people are voting for her because she has policies behind her promises rather than rhetoric. Maybe they need to know pragmatically what she will do for them rather than saying the word change louder and more often.

Maybe we don't need to use the same negative stereotyping that people call racist when it is against his supporters against her supporters. Just a thought.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Should the results of Kentucky (and West Virginia) be of concern to Democrats looking to win back the White House in November?

YES.
It should be a major concern to all who want to Win the presidency!
West Virginia Is a democratic state. I suppose it's been so long since we've had a democratic president, that people have forgotten this tidbit. I might add, the last Dem president to win WV was Bill Clinton (twice).

Obama is just not connecting with the working class who make up a substantial part of the Democratic party.

Hmmm. Something to think about.

Posted by: isabella | May 21, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Well, Clinton has proved in WV and now in KY that the less educated and the whiter the voters are, the better they like her. So, do we really have a national majority of Archie Bunkers?

Posted by: oldhonky | May 21, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Why do Democracts always have to worry about who is the most electable? The Republicans certainly didn't worry about that when they nominated George W. Bush who couldn't even when the popular vote in 2000 while spending the most money ever in a general election and has been proven beyond a doubt to be a horrible president.

Democratic primary voters should pick the person who they think will be the best candidate, not the person who they think will do anything to win. Picking the 'safe guy' in 2000 and 2004 is what got us in the mess, it's time to go with someone like Obama who is willing to speak out unlike someone like Hillary Clinton who will merely try to out-Republican the Republicans just like Bill did.

Posted by: Who won? | May 21, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

rural wv writes:It is hard to have the hope Obama speaks of when you see first hand the ugliness of racism.

--no need to think race is an issue w/just whites, why do you think obama gets 80% of the black vote ? racists on both sides

Posted by: alex | May 21, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

No problems.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Jan - There will be many that will vote for McCain out of fear that their write-in vote for Hillary Clinton won't count. At least they know that their vote will mean something if they make their protest vote for McCain with the assurance that things will not be the way as they had been under Bush for the fact that the Democrats will have larger majorities (more than likely a filibuster-proof majority) in Congress. McCain can't pose much of a problem if he has to deal with a filibuster-proof Congress. More importantly, it would be rebuke of Howard Dean, the DNC and the Democratic elite.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 21, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, this is not a provocative statement. I don't expect to reach 270 with West Virginia and Kentucky. These two states can go for John McCain if they want. If race and "elitism" really hurt your feelings that much, you've got some growing up to do. The more thoughtful voters will come around, however. And I have reason to believe Obama can reach 270 devoid these two states. My reasons are: Barack Obama will carry Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Republicans would be wise not to get too arrogant and waste what money John McCain does not have in these few states. Ohio, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa are the real swing states. Let's play ball. I like my chances with Obama. He's much brighter, and much more inspiring than John McCain. I have no ill feelings for John McCain. I'm so happy Republicans didn't choose Mitt Romney. No matter how "maverick" you think John McCain to be, he's an apologist for George W. Bush's policies. In fact, I have more confidence in President Bush's economic understanding. And that is hardly meant as a sleight. The Republicans would never nominate John McCain in a year they thought they could win, so they left him to defend the worst president in recent memory. Carter, Nixon and Ford outperformed this President Bush, handily. The pendulum must swing. This must happen. Obama must win. I'm ready for this general election. I think Obama is the stronger candidate, and runs a better company. I like what I see.

If you will it, it is no dream -Theodore Herzl

Posted by: legan00@ccny.cuny.edu | May 21, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Every democrat can win California and Oregon etc. The question is can they win the swing states because the solid Democratic states won't be enough. Hillary is a lot stronger in those states.
All the democratic superdelegates' vote can't change it. If we need another Kerry, or Duakakis here is the big opportunity.
If we want to win we should go with Clinton.
I don't think Wright, Rezko, Michelle are going to help much to convince the Reagen democrats to vote for Obama.

Posted by: RJB | May 21, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

I live in rural WV and would like to see the Fix and the national media in general have some courage and talk about what is really going on here. I'm growing tired of the euphemism "rural non-college educated, whites making less than $50,000 a year," let's actually talk about race and the fact that this voting group is where you are most likely to find racist voters.

True story: I was talking to my neighbor (who is in the suspect demographic group) and politics came up. He said, and I swear I can't make this up: "His name sounds like one of the people we should be fighting over there" and then he followed up with, "and I just don't see myself voting for a n*****."

Don't take my word for it, check out West Virginia Public Radio (www.wvpubcast.org):
http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=2052

The question posed by the Fix was if the KY and WV results are a problem in November? The answer is a resounding yes because unfortunately for our nation, and for my state, race will rear its ugly head in November and could prevent an Obama presidency. It is hard to have the hope Obama speaks of when you see first hand the ugliness of racism.

Posted by: Rural WV | May 21, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Ken: As a white 'working' woman in her own household above the 50k a year threshhold, I'de say your trailer park comment is a bit out of wack. I am one of those oddball Americnas who saves her dollars, wants change, and still prefers Hillary because I can identify with those poorer white women and Hillary. Hillary is popular because she shows where a woman with grit can get, and because she has helped those women in the past. And lets face it, this election has shown that rampant sexism is still OK, if racism is not.

One other reason I support Hillary?

What people say and what they do in the voting booth are different things. To say Obama has won the upper midwest is taking a chance. A BIG chance. I might be tired o the poor angry white male voting against his best interest, but I would rather have him vote for Hillary than McCain.

What else has irritatedme is that Hillary has been asked to quit to not kill the party, when at the time she was ahead. Wy should she? She isn't hurting the party, she is making it stronger. Obama will be more prepared as a candidate because of this.

Posted by: Tortfeezer | May 21, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

It is true.
Even amongst recalcitrants, the educated prefer Obama.

Posted by: American patriot | May 21, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Chris is right. These numbers do contain some stark forebodings for Obama. But you know, this guy is so fantastic a campaigner -- so terrific an orator -- that I'm willing to bet he'll win over more than sufficient white, less-educated voters to put him easily over the top in November. He's just got it.

Posted by: chuck mcfadden | May 21, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

As a strong supporter of Obama, this has and continues to concern me. I feel like Obama is going to have to make a very concerted effort over the next several months to show the people of Appalachia that he is not an elitist who is out to take away their guns, or who looks down on them for "clinging to religion" (for the record, that made me cringe too). Maybe he can use the upcoming poverty tour that he promised to Edwards to highlight all the good ideas he has for the working poor to win over a larger part of this portion of the electorate.

Posted by: erikpdumont | May 21, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

You know the problem with people like you, you never have any money to back up your claims. I would like to have some of that bet. Honestly, Obama will actually win by a land slide in November.
++++++++++
Obama has zero chance of winning the general election. He is a worse nominee than Michael Dukakis. He only appeals to the most radical of the Democratic party.

He will be destroyed in the general election. Most Clinton supporters will either vote for McCain or not vote at all. He just doesn't connect with most people and his lack of any experience makes him a non-starter with most people.

Someone mentioned that the Democrats lost West Virginia in the last two elections. And that is true. But what is also true is that the Democrats lost both presidental elections.

Add WV to PA, Ohio, Indiana,and Florida as states that Obama has no chance of winning if he gets the nomination from the party.

Interestingly enough Obama lost to Clinton in Oregon among people who attend church sporadically and those who attend church regularly. His only win were among people who never attended church.

I have no idea why that is but it is a bad sign for Obama. As for Obama not campaining in West Virginia or Kentucky he just did that because he knew he would lose by over 35% and he wanted an excuse for the poor showing.

Posted by: atomic | May 20, 2008 11:53 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Not sure what all this means. Barak has played by the rules and won. It's his to win or loss in November, no matter what. Saying that he will have trouble in WV and Kentucky is not an issue, but something that has been thrown out by the media and HRC to keep us "tuned in".

Posted by: JEM | May 21, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama's supporters need to understand that they can't win the general election. Ask Al Gore and John Kerry.

The voters we are all talking about are called Reagan DEMOCRATS. The Democrat who got these DEMOCRATS back after 12 years was Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is the only twice-elected Democratic President in my lifetime.

The well-earned reputation that Democrats have for losing elections is being played out right before our very eyes. Barack Obama wins Kansas, and Hillary Clinton wins PA, OH and FL. And Barack Obama is the one the DNC is going to hand-pick as their candidate.

I think the November surprise is going to be the number of write-in votes for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Jan | May 21, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


The Obama people are always on a "willing suspension of disbelief"


When the numbers go their way, it means the skies have opened up and it is a new way of winning.

When the numbers do not go their way, the numbers are not meaningful in the general election - are we serious here ???

The primaries are unique because the demographics within the party are rarely tested in primaries - most primaries now are not contested.

The general election is much clearer.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


The Obama people are always on a "willing suspension of disbelief"


When the numbers go their way, it means the skies have opened up and it is a new way of winning.

When the numbers do not go their way, the numbers are not meaningful in the general election - are we serious here ???

The primaries are unique because the demographics within the party are rarely tested in primaries - most primaries now are not contested.

The general election is much clearer.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

West Virginia and Kentucky are of some concern, but I think you political pundits over analyze exit polling results.

Give credit to the Clinton campaign. Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill Clinton each campaigned hard for Hillary in West Virginia and Kentucky. For all the talk you political pundits speak about whether Bill Clinton was an asset or liability for Hillary, it is clear to me Bill is an overall asset. Bill is loved by the white-working class Democratic-base which rubbed off onto Hillary.

Kentucky and West Virginia can be turned around in favor of Obama if both Obama and Bill Clinton can go back into those same areas and campaign for Obama and the Democratic party.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: AJ | May 21, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


The Obama people are always on a "willing suspension of disbelief"


When the numbers go their way, it means the skies have opened up and it is a new way of winning.

When the numbers do not go their way, the numbers are not meaningful in the general election - are we serious here ???

The primaries are unique because the demographics within the party are rarely tested in primaries - most primaries now are not contested.

The general election is much clearer.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 21, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

The worrisome states for Democrats with Obama as the nominee are Ohio and Florida. Polls from both states have Clinton beating McCain...and McCain beating Obama. That's 47 electoral votes and a 94 electoral vote swing.

Posted by: CoralGables | May 21, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

West Virginia and Kentucky are of some concern, but I think you political pundits over analyze exit polling results.

Give credit to the Clinton campaign. Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill Clinton each campaigned hard for Hillary in West Virginia and Kentucky. For all the talk you political pundits speak about whether Bill Clinton was an asset or liability for Hillary, it is clear to me Bill is an overall asset. Bill is loved by the white-working class Democratic-base which rubbed off onto Hillary.

Kentucky and West Virginia can be turned around in favor of Obama if both Obama and Bill Clinton can go back into those same areas and campaign for Obama and the Democratic party.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: AJ | May 21, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Expect Obama to also make serious inroads in the Lower Midwest. He has the Upper Midwest sewn up.

Posted by: Jim | May 21, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

On MSNBC they just showed exit polling that those White democrats that said they would vote for McCain are in the same number that voted for Bush, in other words one must ask if these people were going to vote for Democrat anyway. They are also polling that says this might be a geographical issue since these voters are in the Appalachian area that might be a problem. Obama did not do well with the white Appalachian voter. He does well in other states with the white working class voter. MD, VA, WI, OR, WA, VT, NC, IA, ID, CO.

Posted by: hsg516 | May 21, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

I'm wondering when Chris and other media outlets will take as much interest in Obama's strength in the West as they do with his weakness in Appalachia. It's no stretch to predict that Obama will likely take California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. McCain would take Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho. Why is this ongoing reshaping of the West's electorate such a non-story? Is Appalachia really that critical to a Democratic victory?

Posted by: Jim | May 20, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Kentucky is highly unlikely to go Democratic. I'd find it hard to believe WV would. Not sure this is as stark as you say, Chris.

Posted by: Walt | May 20, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama has zero chance of winning the general election. He is a worse nominee than Michael Dukakis. He only appeals to the most radical of the Democratic party.

He will be destroyed in the general election. Most Clinton supporters will either vote for McCain or not vote at all. He just doesn't connect with most people and his lack of any experience makes him a non-starter with most people.

Someone mentioned that the Democrats lost West Virginia in the last two elections. And that is true. But what is also true is that the Democrats lost both presidental elections.

Add WV to PA, Ohio, Indiana,and Florida as states that Obama has no chance of winning if he gets the nomination from the party.

Interestingly enough Obama lost to Clinton in Oregon among people who attend church sporadically and those who attend church regularly. His only win were among people who never attended church.

I have no idea why that is but it is a bad sign for Obama. As for Obama not campaining in West Virginia or Kentucky he just did that because he knew he would lose by over 35% and he wanted an excuse for the poor showing.

Posted by: atomic | May 20, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

So does that say, the stupider the voter the more likely they will vote for Clinton?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

These numbers are horrible for Obama and I'm not going to tell you why.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

There are no white working class voters in Oregon.

Can't you see how stupid your talking point is. Hillary is a liar and you are stupid enough to repeat it.

Obama can't win trailer parks.

We'll get over it.

Posted by: Ken | May 20, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

KY and WV were never on the Dems radar nor should they have been.

Now, Ohio and Pennsylvania are. Polls show Obama doing well in PA, and only slightly behind in OH.

Kentucky and West Virginia are poorer, less educated, and less diverse than Ohio and Pennsylvania. They are NOT favorable terrain to a man named Barack Obama.

Posted by: Dems in 2008 | May 20, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Oregon certainly has a high percentage of "working-class white." WV and KY have gone Republican in the past two elections anyway, as stated by first!. In addition, KY is off the map in terms of Obama; it was well known that Clinton would win the state, and Obama didn't even campaign there. So, no big deal!

Posted by: lskloven | May 20, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

The electoral college is winner-take-all. WV and KY have gone Republican in the past two elections anyway. They are not truly necessary to win the nomination. Pennsylvania and Ohio are much more important, and they are considerably more open to swing. When Hillary finally takes her graceful bow (the grace of which is becoming increasingly questionable), the Democrats are going to tear McCain apart. He can have WV and KY, they are content to remain in the dark ages. The rest of us are clamoring for the type of change not seen in this country since FDR.

Posted by: First! | May 20, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Were Democrats counting on winning KY or WV to make it to 270? Frankly, if it comes down to a close fight in either of those states, things are bad in Dem land.

Posted by: Mason | May 20, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

In terms of raw numbers, Obama still received more votes in Kentucky than McCain did (app. 210,000 to 142,000). Granted, the Republican race probably isn't drawing much interest at this point, but the fact that McCain once again was able to earn only 72% of the Republican vote shows cracks in his base, too.

The question is who these voters will trust between McCain and Obama. My guess is that Obama will have the easier sell based on message and based on opposition to Bush.

Yeah, the numbers don't flatter Obama, but the fact that Obama can win a white state like Oregon just as convincingly as Clinton won Kentucky says to me that Obama can reach out to these white, working class voters before November, especially if McCain keeps being McCain.

If McCain starts being Clinton, on the other hand, Obama might be in trouble.

Posted by: blert | May 20, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company