What might West Virginia's primary mean?

CHARLESTON, West Virginia (CNN) -- West Virginians will head to the polls Tuesday for the state's Democratic primary between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But what will the vote there really mean after new delegate totals show Obama with a sizable lead?

Some say it could send a sobering message to Obama's Democratic supporters.

West Virginia is expected to go for Clinton big time -- and the polls show it.

-snip-

"This state is really Hillary Clinton's wheelhouse. It's an older population, socially conservative, blue-collar workers," said Kennie Bass, a political reporter for WCHS in West Virginia.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/west.virginia/index.html

Maybe my winning candidate should give up?

raining on the Obama parade. Meh.

that a state and its voters aren't important simply because the majority of them voted for Hillary.

That is a Hillary strategy and one of the strategies that, IMO, has not served her well. It has insulted Democrats that she would have needed if she won the primary, and I would guess it had at least some impact on how the SDs regard her ability to unite the Dems to win in November.

absolutely nothing

who might like to have a solid win to cheer them up.

I think it means a lot to the Obama supporters and the Dem Party, too. No state and its voters are "not important" (as Hillary would say for a state that the majority of Dems didn't vote for her). We can't afford to write them off as unimportant. I also don't think it serves Obama and his chances in November if we insult WV voters now as an attempt to dismiss the fact that they appear to be soundly turning their back on Obama as a candidate.

Let's all check our egos at the door and try to be patient as the last few weeks play out. Obama isn't reacting to Hillary and her surrogates' anger-baiting, and (because they are going for a reaction from him to keep their campaign alive) this is resulting in Hillary/surrogates spinning more and more out of control. The more they spin out of control, the more it nudges Hillary supporters to Obama.

We can afford to be patient and gracious in the next few weeks, following OBama's lead and not reacting to the divisive tactics of Hillary and her campaign. For me, it is an easy price to mean if t means it makes it easier for us to win in November.

I don't care to be lectured to by a concern nanny, which is why you're going on ignore now.

I disagree with your kindergarten school teacher like rationale and analysis. Let's all check our tendency to try to rearrange the conduct of others, eh?

You?

West Virginia will show how unelectable Obama is when he doesn't have a 2% turnout caucus or a 20% black population to pad his stats.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

McCain is regularly losing 25% of the vote in states where he has *nobody competing against him*.

FYI, by my count, any possible delegate victory in WV has already been overcome by the superdelegates Obama has gained since the last primary.

Hillary continues to lose ground and claim victory. I liked one pundit's comparison... She's like a kidnapper who's been arrested using her phone call from jail to make ransom demands.

Let me know.

Uh, see, most people outside of Camp Hillary don't try to count primaries in which you're not actually running against someone. My point was that McCain, with *no* opposition, still lost 25% of the vote.

If you need a comparison, though, McCain lost Arkansas by 40 points, Utah by over 80 points, and still took the election.

How many primaries, since McCain has been the presumptive nominee, has he lost 70% of the vote?

against Hillary in states where she has 99% white people to pad her vote.

Boy that sounds dumb.

You're asking when McCain, with nobody spending money, launching TV ads and campaigning day and night against him got the same results you expect Obama to get in WV -- after Hillary has been doing exactly that.

There's no point in this, you know. Even the superdelegates have given up on your arguments. Find another windmill to tilt at.

Why is he unelectable in the general election?

I want to hear it in your own words.

Wisconsin, with an AA population of much less than 20%?

:eyes:

It must have been all those black people in those states that put him over the top, huh? :sarcasm:

Move along ...these are not the droids you are looking for.

who won't vote for a black man?

Obama knows full well they're out there. We just see that there's a larger group in this region. But they're outliers.

If Clinton could count on that being a nationwide issue, she would have locked up the nomination on the "hardworking white American" vote already.

that will never elect a Black man. :sarcasm:

That will do wonders for the American Dream and the term "Melting pot". :sarcasm:

West Virginia will prove to the rest of the country to be an aberration to "Real" American values-- that's what WV will show.

And so, the rest of the country will have to show poor backward WV the way.

'big win' that's essentially meaningless as far as the nom goes.

... are the most non-racist people you'll ever meet, and (2) That winning WV means it's a whole new game.

We'll just laugh.

:rofl:

kissing your sister.

Meaningless.

If Gore had West Virginia, then we would have had no Bush II. So those folks saying that West Virginians don't decide elections should look back at 2000. Even without FL, if Gore had got either WV or NH, he would have been inaugurated.

I was mentioning a historical fact about the pivotal role that West Virginia voters have played in recent Presidential elections. I was trying to contrast that pivotal role to the many dismissive posts towards WV voters on DU today.

Your reply points out a potentially difficult situation in which Senator Obama may find himself. The voters that have tended to decide Presidential elections are exactly those that his primary campaign has apparently turned off.

Also, I would point out that I have read a number of posts here today from Obama supporters that have said that polls of general election match-ups in particular states do not mean anything at this early date.

http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2008/05/10/23/Poll-PresidentialRace.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf

Here's the article also:
http://www.kentucky.com/254/story/402089.html

At the same time, you claimed they were both losing to McCain in West Virginia, while your link refers to a Kentucky poll. Do you have a link for the claim about West Virginia match-ups in the general election?

Either way, as I said, my original post was not about the general election match-ups. It was about the disconnect between the central role of WV voters in past Presidential elections and the dismissive attitude towards them on DU.

I don't deny that we, as a party, need to find a way to appeal to these voters. Obama's VP could help him do just that. Also spending more time in those areas wouldn't hurt.

I had seen that they were both behind in KY (yikes), but had not seen that they were losing in WV.

I appreciate finding common ground.

in November..

it means Bupkis..


and that republican privateers will continue to blow up the mountain tops, and mining accidents will continue ad infinitum..and the people will remain poor

and if he had won, he would have been President.

After Gore lost by just about 41,000 votes and Bush spent 8 years destroying our nation, if our nominee can not put into play a crucial state that has decided recent Presidential elections, then we are in deep trouble.

Link for 2000 WV Results: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

he would have won.. or if Florida had not mucked up their ballots..and ...and...and..and..

just sayin..

And I'm just saying why blow off a state that Gore only lost by 40,000 votes?

For a Democratic nominee to win the White House, they have to win WV, FL, or "any number of other states" that Gore or Kerry could not. And they have to hold all the ones that Gore or Kerry did win. I'm not convinced that Senator Obama can do this. At the same time, I'd recommend that supporters of Senator Obama view me as a Democratic voter in a crucial swing state (FL), rather than the enemy or some dumb hick.

I can't remember when so I can not find the link. But I remember reading an interview of John Waters in the local Baltimore paper. It was before the release of one of his recent movies, maybe Hairspray. He was making the point that "white trash" (his term in the interview) were the last group that it was still PC to make fun of. I've been thinking of that quote a lot today as I've been reading DU. Free Tracy Turnblad!

Hillary was the one who planned to blow everyone off that competed after Feb 5..(until she lost)..

Obama will not cede ANY state..red or blue..

I definitely agree with you that Senator Obama's strategy was superior to Senator Clinton's.

If Senator Obama will not cede any state in November, he needs to tell that to his supporters who seem to be putting down Democratic voters in WV, KY, FL, and MI -- and that's just today.

:)

they will vote as they want, and he will campaign there in the fall and try to won as many as he can..

:)

and I'm not sure I understand your argument.

The political calculations made by the Obama campaign in this primary season have done several things, in my opinion. One is to take advantage of the current interpretation of DNC decisions and to win the states needed by the margin needed to get the majority of pledged delegates in currently counted states. The second is to produce this set of events where the likely Democratic nominee will lose the WV primary by somewhere around 30%. The third is that the likely Democratic nominee has alienated the very group of voters, regardless of the state, that is needed to win Presidential elections. That is the point of a WV blow out.