Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Oh yeah — Hillary wins WV

By

By a lot.  The networks called it so fast, I didn’t have a chance to jump the gun!

While the math won’t change a lot tonight (WV has only 28 delegates), here’s an interesting nugget:

Clinton is also using electoral history to make her case.

“I think it’s fair to say that West Virginia is a test. It’s a test for me, and it’s a test for Sen. Obama, because for too long we have let places like West Virginia slip out of the Democratic column. And you know it is a fact that no Democratic president has ever won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia,” Clinton said.

Bill Clinton won West Virginia in 1992 and 1996. George W. Bush took the state in 2000 and 2004.

In other news, the WaPo reports today that a pledged delegate has switched from Clinton to Obama.  AFAIK, that’s the first such report this cycle.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. As an Edwards supporter, I have leaned toward Clinton since my candidate folded.

    <

    p>I seem impervious to Obamania, even really trying at times to get behind him.

    <

    p>My respect for Clinton whose behavior mirrors the women I admire most: my mother, grandmother, friends and neighbors (working, raising children, running households, activists engaged in community and national politics) has grown.  She is exhibiting what some criticize as blocking Obama’s success.  I see it as true grit. No wonder the working class people of WVA identify with her.

    <

    p>

    It’s not surprising that low-income working women are the cornerstone of Hillary’s success. Many of these women live on the edge of disaster. A pink slip, a family member’s illness, a parent who can no longer live alone, a car that won’t start or a mortgage rate that goes up — all are threats that could devastate the family. And yet these women do what women have done for ages. They put on a confident face, feed their children breakfast and get them off to school. They don’t quit. They suck it up and fight back against whatever life throws their way.

    They see in Hillary Clinton a candidate who understands the pressures they face. As they watch her tough it out against all odds, refusing to quit and continuing to compete against whatever the media and her opponents throw her way, they see a woman as tough and resilient as they are. They clearly want her to win. Her victory, I believe, is their victory.

    So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.

    <

    p>A note of appreciation to the men who are steadfast in their support of women candidates.

  2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama’s people try to get at least a few supers to announce for them tomorrow, because Clinton now has a week to bask in an unequivocal victory, which is likely the last time she will have that chance.

    <

    p>As far as WV as a Democratic bellweather goes, it makes perfect sense that Clinton is stressing this point, but really it’s pretty meaningless. There used to be a time that no Republican won without Vermont and Maine, but clearly those times are over. WV has been trending Republican for quite some time, so while clearly Clinton has more of a chance than Obama has there in November, I doubt either of them can win it. The demographics there are just not good enough for Democrats anymore.

    • but I do believe this year will be different because the timing of the recession will make WV and OH ripe for the picking.

      <

      p>If we have a candidate in Nov. that can identify with voters and harness voter resentment against the economy (which is almost always aimed against the incumbent party) then WV will be in play.  

      • If we have a candidate in Nov. that can identify with voters and harness voter resentment against the economy (which is almost always aimed against the incumbent party)

        <

        p>I’ve got the feeling (particularly after yesterday’s Democratic victory in Mississippi’s First Congressional District) that as long as the candidate keeps the “D” next to his or her name, she or he will be in good shape to do just that.

        <

        p>The problem with WV, to put in in blunt demographic terms, is that it is probably a bit too old and a bit too white to be in play, unlike OH, MI, and PA where the economy issue will also be huge.

    • I’m not sure this is a recipe for success. I’ve long since thought that we, as a party, must abide by the wishes of our primary voters – something I feel so important as a party lobbyist that it may even trump winning. However, given the way the swing states are going, I’m only hoping I don’t live to regret that. Boy do I ever wish Al ran, or Edwards pulled off a miracle…

      • I’m not sure what other “swing states” are being written off here. WV is a special case because of its massive Republican turn in a relatively short time the last few years. All other swing states, such as NM, IA, MI, PA, and yes, FL are still very much on the table.

  3. to hearing long term Obama supporters condemn the pledged delegate switching votes. Of course, that whole thing is obnoxious and makes me question why we have delegates voting on Presidential nominations in the first place. Let’s use the delegate system to make party decisions, not party nominations. Quite frankly, I don’t think the same sort of people who want to be a delegate because they care about a candidate are going to be the same group of people who can bring new and important ideas to our party infrastructure as our elected delegates.  

    • Pledged delegates should stay pledged to whomever they were pledged to.  At least through the first ballot at the convention (and lord help us if we have a second).

      <

      p>Obama doesn’t need turncoat pledged delegates. But turncoat superdelegates make a delightful surprise! Welcome, Judas!

  4. Congratulations, Senator Clinton.  I’m sure this is the kind of constituency you dreamed of back in your Wellesley and Yale days.

      • I can see why you’d say that.  Because, it’s not as though Hillary Clinton has made any famous remarks lately trumpeting her popularity among white, non-college-educated voters.

        <

        p>And everyone knows it’s the GOP, not the Democrats, who have been carrying the torch for civil rights since around 1960.

        <

        p>And it’s not as if running against Hillary Clinton is every Republican’s wet dream.

        <

        p>One question – have you ever BEEN to West Virginia?

        • ” racist hillbilly never-been-near-a-college vote! ”
          is a sure-fire way to drive them even farther from obama.  hence, i conclude you’re actually a gooper.  are you a mccain supporter, or still one of the 25% who votes for huckabee, romney or paul?

          • When Obama wins a small state, it means nothing. Less than nothing – it’s apparently a negative that he won S.C., for instance.  But when Hillary Clinton wins perhaps the most conservative, most likely to go all-out Republican state in the general election, somehow it’s really significant news for progressive Democrats.

            <

            p>

            • There is a huge difference between saying a primary isn’t relevent to the general election and calling the constituency “racist hillbilly never-been-near-a-college vote(rs)”.  And the fact that you don’t apparently see the difference is the issue.

          • …I don’t doubt for one second that this person is a BHO supporter.

            <

            p>No true GOP’er would talk that kind of high hat shite about rural America. Obamatons do it reflexively.

        • Worked on events in Charleston, Wheeling and Weirton in 1992, when people were hungering for a Democrat who would focus on the economy.  Seems they want that again.

          <

          p>They didn’t have too many Starbucks then, and probably dont have em now.  Love those Mountaineer teams though when NCAA time comes around.

          • been to wv, i mean.  never thought there could be a whole state without any flat spots! đŸ˜€  other than topography, what made the biggest impression on me was the forest of crosses and religious signs staked up across the countryside.  this is one state that should love obama’s god-talk.

    • I am an educated person and I support Senator Clinton.

      <

      p>We are all good Democrats, but Obama should not declare victory prior to earning the nomination.  We will unite behind whomever our party has the wisdom to select.

      <

      p>However, it is disrespectful to treat Hillary and her supporters the way you elitists do.

      <

      p>I wear my blue collar proudly!

      <

      p>

      • is a Hillary supporter calling an Obama supporter “elitist.”  What date was it Hillary promised she’d have the nomination wrapped up?  And who has been essentially running on the “entitlement” platform?  As in, how dare you challenge my claim to the throne?

  5. The “Presumptive nominee” is beating a guy who’s no longer in the race (Edwards) by 20pts.  

    • That’s not the only person Obama is beating.  That’s not the only person for whom it is mathematically impossible to claim the nomination.

      <

      p>Party on.  Savor this victory in West Virginia all night long. Call in sick tomorrow.

      <

      p>Senator Obama has appropriately moved on to the general election.

      • Can Obama mathamatically declare victory?

        <

        p>How many states and voters will Barack dismiss as irrelivent?  It isn’t good form.

        <

        p>Oh, I won’t be partying all night.  I will get up early and start to work hard for Hillary so she will win the next contest.

        <

        p>Go Hillary!

        <

        p>  

        • Obama has explicitly declined to declare victory.  Because, as you say, it would be poor form.  

          <

          p>But he has won.

          <

          p>Think.  The work you plan on doing tomorrow will benefit John McCain.  Hillary has lost.  Are you only thinking of 2012?

  6. Hillary keeps winning lswing and large states.

    <

    p>We have two fine contenders who are energizing the electorate.  Democrats will unite behind our party’s nominee once we have one.

    <

    p>

  7. I guess we can all agree that Ms. Clinton is officially the “Queen of the Appalachians”.  The West Virginia result is really nothing new.  Clinton has killed Obama along this spine of mountains in every state they have faced off.  

    <

    p>Josh Marshall writes about this over at TPM.  As he points out, the West Virginia margin mirrors that in Southeastern Ohio and in rural central Pennsylvania – both regions of Appalachia.  It also happened in the far western corners of both North Carolina and Virginia, in eastern Tennessee and Arkansas (which while not Appalachian, has a lot of similar demographics in the Ozarks – let us remember that Bill is a former popular Governor from this region of the country).  But what is different about Pennsylvania and Ohio from West Virginia is that while they have other regions too, West Virginia is all Appalachia – older, whiter and mostly lacking in folks with college educations – in WVY last night 70% of the electorate lacked a college degree, the highest margin I’ve seen yet.  

    <

    p>Obama has done somewhat better with all these groups once he has gotten out of these mountains.  In Appalachia this vote is compounded.  I guess the big question is what is the deal for Obama in these areas and can he bring some of these people back onside for the general?  Hard to tell. Is it something to worry about?  Of course it is.  

    <

    p>As a big Obama supporter, I’d love to see him fare better in these States.  I’d love to see ugly statistics, that show race was big factor in the vote of 2 in 10 voters in West Virginia and of those 8 in 10 went for Clinton, go away.  That would be great.  

    <

    p>But I knew going in, when I decided I wanted to support Obama to be our nominee and next president, that his was always an uphill climb against the biggest and most popular name in Democratic party politics and that even if he was able to pull off an epic upset victory against the inevitable and well-oiled Clinton camp, that he would face the burdens of race and cynicism going forward into the general.  I didn’t pick him because I thought he had the best chance of winning in November, although I think he does.  I picked him because he is the person I wanted to be our president.  

    <

    p>Clinton supporters are allowed to engage in a bit of schadenfraude over results like these, taking a perverse glee in seeing their nemesis’ march to the nomination temporarily delayed by the hard-working folks of the Appalachian backcountry.  Electability matters and Obama’s lack of support in such places is a troubling reality.  That said, he has come a long way in a short-time.  He ran this race he had to – knowing he couldn’t win everywhere.  That he has not convinced everyone yet of his merits is fine.  He is not writing off such places and he will put together a band of states, some Clinton couldn’t, that play to his strengths.  He has time and he will be competitive where he needs to be.  A united party with the wind in our sails will be tough to beat.  And Obama can pick Jim Webb as his veep choice, the original backcountry fighter, and they will take it to McCain in these mountains as well.

    <

    p>

  8. …gets beaten this badly in any primary after the kind of feel-good week he has just had is stunning to me.

    <

    p>I think the Democratic Party needs to think long and hard about which candidate is the best choice to lead us to a win in November.

    • It just so happens that a couple of states that lean strongly conservative and thus pro-Hillary in terms of Democrats (because they won’t vote for a Black guy – read the exit polls – he’s a Muslim, is under the influence of Jeremiah Wright, etc.) scheduled their primaries for late in the process.  Maybe you should review the number of states where HRC got her butt handed to her by Obama before you start in on how this changes everything.

      <

      p>Because it changes nothing.  Obama has played by the rules and has the nomination locked up.  Even as he was losing in WV yesterday, he picked up more superdelegates.  By staying in the race, HRC is putting personal ambition ahead of the good of her party.  And you think that’s a good thing?

      • why Barry is our best chance to lose in November, even when handed the election on a platter.

        <

        p>If you recall, WV went Dem in the 88, 92, and 96 elections. They have a majority democratic congressional delegation. More to the point, Obama’s embarrassing showing demonstrates a weakness in OH & PA, where Appalachia extends.

        <

        p>Compare that to all those midwest caucus states “where HRC got her butt handed to her by Obama” most of which will NEVER vote for a democrat for president.  

        • You would be correct if all the people voting for Hillary weren’t, in fact, voting for her but were instead voting against him.

          <

          p>Just because a voter prefers Hillary over Barack, it does not follow that they will therefor prefer McCain over Barack. That’s like saying that a beer drinker who is asked to pick her favorite style of beer between two choices and chooses style A will then choose to drink wine if given the choice between wine and beer style B. If she’s already expressed her overall preference for beer, there’s an awfully good chance that she’ll stick with it, even if it isn’t her favorite style.

          <

          p>The party will come together once we have a nominee. Stop trying to scare us into thinking that this isn’t true.

          • it’s quite obvious that a 41 pt spread reveals either a relative strength in Clinton or a relative weakness in Obama i n the state.

            <

            p>Josh Marshall wrote a must-read at TPM, arguing that its not a ‘white working class’ problem that Barry has,per se, but a problem with the demographic groups that are concentrated in the Appalachian region (white, low income, low education, older), which extends into OH and PA.

            <

            p>Clinton is relatively strong with these demographics, Obama relatively weak. Now do a bit of backwards induction, keeping in mind McCain’s strength with these demographics.

            <

            p>What conclusion do you reach?

            • I’d draw the conclusion that Obama is weak in Apalachia. I just don’t follow up that conclusion, as you seem to, with the additional conclusion that he is therefor the weaker of our two choices in the general.

              <

              p>I read Marshall’s article and you were absolutely right–it’a a must read. But of all Marshall’s analysis, I think the most important thing to take away was this:

              <

              p>

              [Apalachia] was fiercely anti-Slavery. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery.

              <

              p>What Marshall is saying by saying that Apalachians were “anti-slave” is that they were racist. So what I hear you saying (and forgive me if I’m wrong) is, “Obama doesn’t have a problem with working-class whites; he’s got a problem with Apalachians. Apalachians are racist and are likely to vote for McCain rather than vote for a black man. We need Ohio and Pennsylavania to win. Therefor we have to drop Obama in favor of Clinton.”

              <

              p>Look, I like Clinton … ALOT! I just happen to like Obama more. And I refuse to support the idea that the Democratic Party should nominate the second place finisher in every meaningful metric that we have (states won, popular vote, pledged delegates and–at this point in time–even super dellegates) simply because we feel we need to cater to the racist leanings of a particular region of the country.

              <

              p>That’s just plain dumb. If we lose, we lose. But win or lose, we should be aligning the party with the cultural beliefs of our more open-minded younger voters all across the country rather than our older and, according to Marshall, more racist voters in one particular region. It’s not only the right thing to do on the issues, but it makes sense for the long term prospects of the Party.

              • But win or lose, we should be aligning the party with the cultural beliefs of our more open-minded younger voters all across the country rather than our older and, according to Marshall, more racist voters in one particular region. It’s not only the right thing to do on the issues, but it makes sense for the long term prospects of the Party.  

                <

                p>I am to young to have crossed that bridge in Selma, but I will stand here today.

              • We draw very different interpretations from Obama’s “Appalachia problem”:

                <

                p>You believe, given their history, that it is driven by racism. No doubt there may be an element of racism in there, but I see it quite differently.

                <

                p>WV shares a collective inferiority complex. Appalachian voters are by far more anti-elitist than they are racist. While you may see Obama with his nose up high talking about unity and hope as inspirational, they don’t buy the hype.

                • “far more anti-elitist than they are racist”

                  <

                  p>I actually went to school in Appalachia and did indeed see both.  I’d probably want to consult a cultural anthropologist or two before I made that assertion though.

                • And just to be fair … I’m not really certain that I’m comfortable labling Apalachians as racist (I have little personal experience with the area); that’s just what I got from Marshall’s historical analysis.

                  <

                  p>As for the anti-elitism angle. I can certainly see what you’re saying. It’s an interesting argument. Unfortunately, I’m stubborn and sticking with my man Barack.  đŸ™‚

        • Is that another way of saying “raised more money from more donors and won more votes, more states, more pledged delegates and more superdelegates?”  He was handed what exactly?

          • I know, right?  It’s amazing what people in a personality cult will say when their hero goes down.

            <

            p>Handed to him?  Obama started out as the challenger, the underdog.  He’s also the Black guy with, as he puts it, “a funny sounding name.”  He is also not married to a former president.

            <

            p>You see, it’s called projection.  Hillary is the privileged one to whom many, many things have been handed.  Would she have her Senate seat without her husband?  Would she be in this race?

          • I know, right?  It’s amazing what people in a personality cult will say when their idol goes down.

            <

            p>Handed to him?  Obama started out as the challenger, the underdog.  He’s also the Black guy with, as he puts it, “a funny sounding name.”  He is also not married to a former president.

            <

            p>You see, it’s called projection.  Hillary is the privileged one to whom many, many things have been handed.  Would she have her Senate seat without her husband?  Would she be in this race?

    • We should be worried because the candidate in second place had a big win? She’s still in second place!

      <

      p>If Clinton closed out all the remaining contests with big wins and pulled to within a few pledged delegates, I think you’d have an agument. Then the case could be made that the momentum had shifted to her and that she clearly had the upper hand. The fact is, though, that this race has been trending Obama’s way since the very beginning. AND any gains from West Virgina will be wiped out by Obama’s likely big win in Oregon.

      <

      p>When Obama wins by double digits in Oregon, will you be worrying about Clinton’s electoral chances?

    • Because Clinton has lost quite a few primaries by huge margins after “feel good” weeks so I guess that leaves us with someone who is not running like Gore.

      • This is not an unfair comment.  Clinton’s biggest wins have come after terrible weeks; victories have been followed by letdowns.  The same is true of Obama.

        <

        p>Both candidates have striking weaknesses.  Neither has done all that much to shore up the weaknesses rather than pretend they don’t exist.

        <

        p>Evidently they’re hoping that Democrat weather continues until November as forecast.

        • but I think you overemphasize Obama and Clinton’s weaknesses. Couldn’t it just be that they both have strong appeal to the Democratic electorate and people have been having a tough time deciding? That is how I see it.

          • A 50/50 split isn’t in and of itself evidence of the strength or weakness of either side of a binary choice.  Mutually strong or mutually weak choices can result in such a split.

            <

            p>So which is going on here?  Is there any other information we can look toward where we can tell?

            <

            p>I suppose voter turnout could be a measure of voter enthusiasm.  If so, then we have quite an enthusiastic set of supporters on both sides.  That would tend to support a ‘both sides strong’ argument.

            <

            p>OTH, you’d think either candidate would poll better nationally against McSame.  That could support a ‘both sides weak’ argument.  

            <

            p>Given that the general campaign hasn’t really begun I would tend to lend more weight to the turnout than to the polls on the general.  Also one should consider the relative strength of voter turnout for the GOP back when their nomination was still undecided.

    • We need to get away from all this thinking where failure to have a coronation means the leading candidate is fatally flawed. It’s a close race. That’s all it means. They are both good candidates, near equal in support. What do you expect — for everyone in West Virginia to switch their vote to Barak because other states gave him a narrow lead? Give me a break.

      <

      p>They’re both stronger that McCain.

  9. Clinton got 67% to Obama’s 26%. That accounts for 93% with 7% going to Edwards.
    Since JRE is the TRUE populist of the party, you could say that Clinton got about 90% of JRE’s support.

    <

    p>Not that any of this speculation and spin means a GD thing ’cause the race is over.

Archives