home

WV Prediction Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Demography is political destiny. In West Virginia too. There are turnout issues in that the Media has portrayed the race as over. Obama has spent plenty of money in WV and I am sure the Obama camp will be working overtime to get their voters out.

My speculation, 6% of the vote will be A-A and Obama wins 90% of that vote. The remaining 94% goes 67-33 Clinton. Thus, the final score will be 64-36 Clinton. A 28 point win. The Obama memo predicted a 12 point Clinton win. What is your guess?

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< On The Malign Acceptance of Sexism | More West Virginia And Other Matters >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WV Prediction Thread | 215 comments (215 topical)
    Obama's (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    spreadsheet sure has been wrong lately hasn't it?

    Something about the press (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ghost2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM EST
    They act as if Hillary has to defy the polling prediction in order to provide a shock.  If the polling average is +5 for her, they act like she needs to win by +15 (we have had this in PA, IN, and NC).

    On the other hand, if we have another NH, and she overperforms the polls, they'd cry Bradley effect.

    There is no way to win with these a--h--es.  

    Parent

    Yeah, its been pretty crappy all along (none / 0) (#206)
    by jimotto on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:07:17 PM EST
    Maryland O53-C46
    Virginia O50-C48
    DC O57-C41
    Wisconsin O53-C46
    ...

    Parent
    70,000 voted early (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    according to the AP, a record in early voting.  And a lot of that was before Obama's and the media's attempt to shut down turnout.

    And reports of turnout today are good, too, and with good weather.  So I think Clinton is on track to do as well as you predict.  (And that means another sign that the Obama campaign is overconfident, as has been evident before about its internal memo.)

    obama supporters, ignore this (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    message today from the voters at your candidate's peril. this trashing of good people, threats, etc will not fly in the face of the american people's will. win/win is so much smarter than win/lose general due to ego and negativity.

    Parent
    When the press turns on Obama (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    expect them to blame Hillary.

    Parent
    It's not at Obama's peril (2.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Electa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    but rather the peril of America if you all give McCain the presidency.  And, it will be you who gives him the GE should he win.  And, please be clear, the majority of African Americans did not vote for Obama because he's Black, but rather because of his phenominal ability to draw such a diverse group of Americans together.  Afterall, it's only been 400 plus years of racial divide.  I think we're ready for this madness to end.  Won't you join hands with us to let healing begin?

    Parent
    please don't come on here with such (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    commentary you can't prove. sure the aa voters didn't consider the color of his skin! yeah right. and if you think the madness is ending, then i have a bridge in brooklyn i'd like you to buy.

    i didn't mention race here, you did. i am concerned about the lack of experience he has. i am concerned about his attiude toward a number of issues. so please stick to the topics. when i talk about peril, i am talking about disgusted voters leaving the party, afterall we are told our votes are no longer needed.

    Parent

    Who says your votes aren't needed? (2.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Electa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    And, as a double A, I'm pretty aware of where Blacks stand on this election.  Us not so hard working class blacks do talk about these things at the water cooler, on break, standing on the broom, or while we're hiding in the utility closets.

    Parent
    Electa (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:12:12 PM EST
    Donna Brazille said to say "working class" was to ignore and diss the "black working class"   You can't have it both ways.  Oh I forgot...Obama Rules.

    Parent
    Right Electa (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    Too late.  You revealed your true nature downthread.

    Parent
    Sure it is (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    Obama didn't campaign in WVA. Fox just announced some interesting exit poll numbers:

    On the issue of "Trustworthy"

    51% said Obama is  not trustworthy
    36% said Clinton is not trustworthy

    If I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times, Hillary's credibility and trustworthy numbers are the direct result of Obama's negative campaigning. This poll makes me even more certain of that.

    Parent

    Electa, I beg to differ.... (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    but, what do you call 92-93% of Black vote going to Obama, CONSISTENTLY?

    A good friend of mine who up to this election, was 150% pro Clinton, told me that in spite of her loyalty towards the Clintons, she WAS VOTING COLOR AND SO WAS HER FAMILY (25 MEMBERS 18+ YEARS OLD)! Racism, my dear, is much more prominent among blacks than among whites, which by the way it is the reason why Obama has gotten whites' votes.

    It is NOT his "phenomenal ability to draw such a diverse group of Americans together", it is that other "diverse" groups, but especially whites, HAVE GOTTEN OVER IT (the issue of race).

    The truth is the majority of blacks haven't. I teach an inner city high school in New Orleans, and I am constantly aghast at the prejudice and racist attitudes towards not only whites, but Hispanics and Asians. You have no idea, or maybe you do, how many countless times I have been told to get on a boat and go back to my country, or offer to take me to the river so I can swim back to my country (BTW, I am a United States citizen of Spanish U.S. Naturalized citizen parents)  

    Parent

    That's a huge early turn out. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Edwards is expected to take 4% of the vote (none / 0) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    I just heard on Fox that he's still on the ticket, and expected to take votes, which are considered a vote against Obama, from what they said.


    Parent
    So this (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    is how they've set it up? All the votes in WV that aren't Obama's are anti Obama? Interesting.

    Parent
    did you see the (none / 0) (#123)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    unity pony painting of obama?

    it's odd.

    Parent

    It's Fox! (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:10:04 PM EST
    I wouldn't expect, "It's a lovely day and HC's supporters gave her the thumbs up, no racism from us wonderful folks at the F&B network, just facts as we see them."
    It's Fox trolling. That's what they do.

    Parent
    I am betting you will be wrong (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    about Fox's attitude.  They will cover 'what it all means' for Obama but.....  Fox wants to get Clinton supporters for McCain.  I believe they will spend time defending reasons Clinton supporters do not vote for Obama than the other networks.  I imagine they won't call them derogatory terms as I expect CNN or MSNBC to do.  Fox's line is that Clinton supporters have been dismissed and denigrated.  I am not saying Fox will not be negative to a Dem.. pfft.  I am saying the balance between Fox's coverage and the other networks will be interesting.  

    Watch Fox's language towards Clinton and Clinton's supporters and compare it to the other networks.

    I will wait to see the coverage of the three cable networks.

    Parent

    MSNBC, CNN (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
    will be McCain come GE, I would expect. All the information that's been ignored during this primary will be serious news come September.

    Parent
    Fox's attitude (none / 0) (#195)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    Perhaps. I'm saying that it's Fox's modus operandi to drive a wedge wherever possible, if that wedge happens to contain a tinge of racism so be it.
    I do agree, however, that it behooves them to drive Clinton supporters from Obama.

    Parent
    Not against Obama, haven't Accepted... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    Obama as their lord and savior; )

    Parent
    Depends... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    BO has spent a week trying to depress Hill's support for the last week by running around after losing his neighboring state and crowning himself King.  

    Deadbeat Dem (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    Obama is a deadbeat Dem - wanting votes despite paying no attention to the voters.  

    MIA and wanting to be loved.  Sure sign of a messianic complex.

    And that gritty, irritating Hillary - pretending like these voters really matter!

    She will get the overwhelming win that she deserves.

    It would be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    if the attitudes and ballot box returns of the Appalachian region were decisive in most Presidential elections...or even in the "epoch" making shifts in American politrical culture.  I get a feeling they were a key constituency in the FDR years.

    They certainly seem to have been decisive in the last two elections and they maky have had the same effect with Bill Clinton.  he won all up and down the spine of that mountain range.

    According to the Clinton Memo Today (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:31:41 PM EST
    No democrat has become president without winning W. Virginia since 1916.  Obviously Gore "won" but did not become President.  Given that virtually all of W. Va. is Appalachia, that's not surprising because that region is an important one is surrounding swing states.

    Parent
    Technically correct... (none / 0) (#64)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    ...but since Carter lost the W. Va. primary, one can lose the primary and still win the state in the general.  

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:03:26 PM EST
    Carter didn't even PARTICIPATE in the WV primary in 1976.  Robert Byrd was running and he got 89% of the vote.

    Do you think that might have been relevant information to consider in your argument?

    Parent

    Byrd (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    got Obamaian levels of support.

    Parent
    Salo... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    ... I wish you'd cros-post the Kipling parody over at my place....

    You have my permission to (none / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    rob me blind.

    i'll not sue.  infact I think Kiplings people are after me now. I only changed a few words you know.

    Parent

    Will the maker of Efflexor sue (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    the McCain campaign?

    Parent
    eh? (none / 0) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    Kipling has people? Who knew?

    Parent
    like "Smiley's People." (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Where shall we search for this (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    :Creative Class" effort?

    Parent
    35-40 pt win for Clinton. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM EST


    Wow. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:25:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Look at (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    Washington, Greene, and Fayette counties in PA.

    Parent
    My (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    old home county, Washington, went 75-25 for Hillary  Washington, PA, the county seat is situated about halfway between Pittsburgh and Wheeling  It used to be one of the most solidly Democratic regions in the country  Home of coal mines, steel, molybdenum (used to harden steel), and glass factories  

    I love that region,  People are the salt of the earth, real hard workers.  

     I expect the same numbers in West Virginia tonight.  

    I'm going to go with 70-30 Hillary.

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#18)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:26:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I just hope there's no shenanigans with the voting (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by derridog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
    process. The Lake County "delay" in Indiana made me very nervous.
    They didn't steal it, but they may have made it closer just to take away Hillary's bragging rights and install their guy.

    I wish someone would reassure me on this point. Does WVA use electronic voting machines?

    Parent

    I hope it's at least 30 (none / 0) (#160)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM EST
    A 30 point loss is not easily explained away.

    Parent
    west virginia is irrelevant (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Turkana on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    haven't you heard?

    If the media convinces the (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    public of this, I'll have to admit that yes, Obama is the media darling.  

    Parent
    You won't have to. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    The media has been declaring it over for Clinton since late 2007. I found that out on a recent search of teh Google on an unrelated matter.

    If the media ruled, Obama would have gotten to the magic number by now.

    Parent

    Perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    the people of WV are so accustomed to hearing this from the media that Obama's decision to snub them this round of campaigning went completely unnoticed....or, they thought they deserved it and Hillary was just pandering to their sorry souls out of desperation.

    There is no doubt his momentum has left rubber on the road with how fast the brakes were slammed. 39% of his own supporters are saying she should stay in the race. That probably doesn't mean 100% of them are sufferring from buyer's remorse, but I'll bet a good share of them are.

    Parent

    West Va (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Pat Johnson on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    What a lot of these voters are saying right now is that they do not want Obama.  That is why this race is only separates the two by 1%.  Why should she step aside.  I happen to think there is a lot of buyers remorse out there.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    a friend of mine here in GA told me today that she now regrets her vote for Obama. His minister creeped her out. She's pretty demoralized right now and feels that she should have paid better attention to what is going on. Now she thinks we're going to lose the general election to McCain. Too late smart I guess.

    Parent
    Better Late Than Never...At Least She Saw (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    the error of her ways and will not be doomed to repeat that kind of error again.  When Hillary wins the nomination, she can vote for Hillary!!

    Parent
    I know. But why can't the people in Oregon (none / 0) (#162)
    by derridog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    realize this?

    Parent
    Buyer's remorse (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:23:00 PM EST
    often sets in like this, the problem with this race is the media is trying to call it a fait accompli and say we can't do anything about it.

    This is still our party, and yes, we can do something about it.  This is what conventions are for, and just because conventions of recent years have been little more than formalities does not mean that it has to be that way this time around.

    Parent

    Every case of buyers remorse (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by befuddled on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:34:26 PM EST
    should be turned into an opportunity to encourage that person to reassert themselves by writing to their delegates, the DNC, whoever. I know very well that they don't read it all, but I feel pretty sure they at least measure the height of the stack. This site is an excellent source for facts, ideas, and addresses to use.

    Parent
    Not sure I believe "Buyer's Remorse" (none / 0) (#158)
    by gmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:39:42 PM EST
    Not sure I believe that there's a "Buyer's Remorse" effect going on in a large scale.  

    If that were so, wouldn't the polling numbers for Oregon look a lot different than they do right now?  

    Parent

    It's going (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    on but it's not across the board. In Oregon the early voting is tied but OR has lots of latte liberals so I don't see that their votes will tell us a lot. Obama's problems are mainly with working class whites, hispanics, asians and women.

    Parent
    Creative class (none / 0) (#176)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    A lot of people migrated there from California in the mid 90's. Eugene is a big college town too.

    Parent
    Obama's spin (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    Obama has been claiming that Bill Clinton said Hillary would win 80-20 (I can't find anything that shows Bill Clinton said that - just a Hillary supporter engaging in hyperbole to rev up a crowd),
    so the new Obama camp spin (and what will become the media spin) is that anything less than an 80-20 split is a loss.

    My prediction: Clinton 68, Obama 20, Edwards (who is still on the ballot) 2.

    oops (none / 0) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    Should have checked my math.
    C - 68
    O - 30
    E - 2

    Parent
    30 point win. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    I'm going to be optimistic and make that my prediction.
    Outside shot at 35 points.
    I just want turnout to be good.  I want the media to get a finger stuck in their presumptuous eye.  That and I want HRC to have the popular vote in the end.  Just for the satisfaction of it.

    Hi I'm Tweety: I luv Barack! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    and I __ those __  fools in ___ ___. I'm Chris Matthews and I'm an undeclared Democratic superpundit.

    (Ruining Baracks chances all the way to November!)

    Super fool maybe....and you know Tweety is (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    prone to turning on a dime, if he thinks it will give him a leg up on other pundits.

    Parent
    hark, i hear banjos. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM EST


    Tweety already has (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    that "sqealing like a pig" thing down pat, doesn't he?

    Parent
    62-35 (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Makarov on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    With 2% going for Edwards who is reportedly still on the ballot.

    favorite son and all that. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:01:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Turnout will be a talking point (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by miriam on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    Obama campaign with its megaphone media have been saying for weeks that the race is over.  If the turnout is above average, with a large Hillary win, I'd say that's a good indication that voters do not feel it's over and don't want it to be if Obama is the nominee.  It's hard to see how the media will spin a big loss for Obama as anything but a bad sign, but I'm sure they'll try.

    The media seems to have made the call (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    and Obama has got the nom in the bag.

    Haven't turned on the TV yet today but

    last night I forced myself to listen to every single news channel re Hillary and WV and pundits have rarely been so united in their Clinton opinion (and ridicule). Why is she still out there when she can't win this campaign and is broke to boot?

    Joe Klein (who really is a Clinton hater, my goodness) blamed it all on some sort of Clinton sickness, i.e. they (Bill and Hillary) are in denial and just can't accept its over for them (paraphrase). I was stunned how nasty he sounds. Hadn't seen him for months.

    Tweety did acknowledge his concern re Obama not being able to convince the white working class to vote for him but, of course, it is all Hillary's fault.

    Buchanan, at least, said that if Obama couldn't solve his own problems w. the voters he needs, it had nothing to do w. Hillary. Well, he is right there IMHO. AFAIR that's how it has been in every campaign so far. Except in 2008 cause it's Obama time and the rules have changed for the tweeties.

    However, from what I heard it does seem the Obama-loving media folks are concerned about one thing now: Can Obama beat McCain without the white working-class vote, w'out the Latin vote and older voters?

    So finally imp. questions are creeping in the so far smooth Obama media narrative. And yes, Hillary is being blamed plenty already.

    Parent

    My Prediction (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    John Edwards wins!

    :)

    Best response on the thread! LOL (none / 0) (#108)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST


    Parent
    As WV, so goes the nation? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by goldberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    We should get a pretty good idea from WV as to what Obama can expect to max in white voters of either sex.  WV has a small AA population.  I'm going with 64-39-5.

    I've stopped calling them (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:35:12 PM EST
    "white" voters, myself.

    Something to think about.

    Parent

    It never mattered before (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    demographics have been broken down by race and gender for decades. Until this primary, it was never thought to be racist. And, if you'll notice, "white working class males" is not considered sexist.


    Parent
    Winning is the Key! (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    Let's face it, even if Hillary won by 90%, Obama's mates in the media would still construct such a "win" as a "loss". It doesn't matter what margin Hillary wins by it won't be rewarded appropriately by the media. Already they are trying to "knee-cap" her by predicting ridiculous margins so that when she doesn't get these they can spin the "loss" b/s! Whatever, I think a 60-40 win would still a very good outcome, factoring out all of the other hysteria going on. Because at the end of the day, the very fact of an Obama loss is very embaressing for Obama/DNC/Media - why is the "unifier" and "presumptive nominee" not able to win such a key state? Because he is neither a unifier nor is he going to be successful in stealing the nomination!

    Hillary all the way.

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    They would declare it Her Most Gracious Exit (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    opportunity.

    Parent
    Prediction (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Cal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    I predict she will be dissed and dismissed by MSNBO as a "shrill harpy", regardless of the outcome.  The Democratic party is in deep s*** with boomer women voters.  Howard Dean better fix this problem, and quick, if he doesn't want to lose a huge chunk of the Democratic electorate.

    no dice (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:56:17 PM EST
    Can't be fixed.  Too late.  We'd know the reason we are being placated: because they want something from us.  

    Like an abusive man who is only nice when he wants sex.  And after you've been scr3w3d...

    Parent

    Will MSNBC will call the race when polls close (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    Or wait until midnight again

    Parent
    ARG says Clinton by over 40 (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by dem08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    and I think that will be the spread

    Hillary 63%

    Obama   22%

    I am for Obama, but he has a real problem here and with the nomination and with a huge segment of Democrats in the General Election.

    Hillary will get a huge boost today and in KY.

    I think if Clinton hits a 40 spread (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:05:07 PM EST
    it could send some super-d's out to purchase some Depends for the remainder of this race.  A 40 spread and record turnout that she can spin into KY momentum and we may see super-d's visiting their local emergency rooms in order to receive oxygen.  Can BO really declare mission accomplished the same night he gets walloped in a state that has 1 more electoral vote than Oregon?  What if his OR victory is held to single digits?

    I'm not pretending that Clinton is anything but a longshot at this point, but that would be wow!

    Parent

    I just don't believe it. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    It sounds like a set up.  And an impossible expectation.

    Parent
    And yes it may be expectations gaming (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    That would be quite likely.  Frankly nothing between 20 and 40 would shock me.  I'll take the sweet spot at 30.

    Parent
    I think your number for Obama is close (none / 0) (#174)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    but I think Clinton will get close to 70% IF the turnout is really high.  Lower turnout, and it will be closer to 65%.  Edwards = 4%

    Parent
    A West Virginia Story (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Michael Masinter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    I was born in 1946 when West Virginia had a much larger population (6 House members), grew up in Charleston, and attended a de jure segregated grade school in the first and second grades.  In 1954 the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, and in the fall of 1954 my county (Kanawha) integrated its formerly dual school system, sending me to a fully integrated elementary school for third grade and beyond.  I offer that as a response to anyone who thinks West Virginians are racists; we (because I still have family there) are not.  For lots of reasons unrelated to race, West Virginia will vote heavily for Clinton.  But to read much into that fact is to ignore how different West Virginia is from the rest of the nation; by virtually any measure it is the least diverse state in the nation.  It has steadily lost population, and more to the point, it is the only state in the nation that has grown less diverse over the past decade.  Demographically, West Virginia is a window into our past, not our future.

    West Virginia Vote Estimate (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    My guess is that anything shy of 28 per cent will be portrayed by the Obama campaign as a loss;  if 28 per cent and over, it will be presented as too late or that West Virginians are just clinging to their snake-handling religion.

    WV is 2 to 1 (1.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Electa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    Democrat and Bush won the state both times.  It's a blatant racist state, I lived there until 06.  Blacks' socioeconomic conditions are worse in WV than the MS Delta and Rio Grande.  Hillary has really gained bragging rights.  Hooplah, Hillary wins a state where the #1 state university, WVU, fraudulently gave the Governor's daughter a MBA to get a job.  You go HRC!!!

    Today's e-mail? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:50:45 PM EST


    Parent
    I was just about to (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by eric on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    type the same comment.  Yep, daily talking points...

    Parent
    Ah yes. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:54:22 PM EST
    The "we don't need no racist hillbillies" stock response.

    Feel the unity!

    Parent

    welcome to being southern (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    This is the same knee-jerk crap we get all the time, no matter our great universities, the wonderful people who live here or the progressive politicians and leaders who were born here and went on to do great things.

    It's a shame for y'all, really.  All of the bigotry, none of the biscuits.

    Parent

    I come from the other side of the Altlantic (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    and even I know there is something deeply wrong with the Brahmins.

    Parent
    Inbreeding. (none / 0) (#104)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:19:02 PM EST


    Parent
    MmmmMMMMmmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    biscuits.

    BTW - I'm a Baltimore girl. I laughed and laughed when someone I met at a party thought I was from the South.

    Clearly that person traveled farther South than New Jersey.

    Hubby and I went to Harper's Ferry, WV, and stayed at a B&B. It was a wonderful, but strange, experience. The proprietress referred to the Civil War as "the recent unpleasantness."

    Parent

    Ahem, WV stayed in the Union (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    y'know.  And thus, of course, it was quite unpleasant for WV, and the economic scars of being cut off from the more prosperous parts of Virginia do remain.  

    (We are a young and presentists people who forget that was not that many generations ago.  Heck, I was raised on resentment of An Gorta Mor, the famine that pushed some of my people here -- almost a generation before our Civil War.  And in Europe, I was told that 1776 was still "current events"!)

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#103)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    You are right - anything before 50 years ago is "antique" in America.

    The Europeans take quite a longer view of history. :-)

    Parent

    Ah, but we get the gravy (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    with this primary.  Love me them biscuits and gravy.  (Not a fan of grits, though.:-)

    Oh, and about the idjits who hate all things Southrun?  Let 'em keep it up and tell it to all the Northern AAs, many of them late Great Migraters and with a lot of relatives still in the South and being dissed by the Obamans who really have no sense of AA history at all.  Let 'em eat latte.

    Parent

    Btw, I've been to WV and southern Indiana (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:05:52 PM EST
    a lot, with relatives in both places, and I recall seeing Confederate flags -- huge ones -- only in southern Indiana.  Relatives report same in southern Illinois.  Never saw any in WV, and we went down a lot of off-roads as well.

    Parent
    That's because (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by miriam on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    West Virginia was a proud Union state, formed during the Civil War. Virginia seceded but the western part of the state refused to, leading to its statehood.

    Parent
    Indiana stayed in the Union, too :-) (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    But it was infamous for Confederate sympathizers, of course.  As there were in WV -- but the relatives there rather relished stories of what was done to them. :-)

    Parent
    but still (none / 0) (#106)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    ever so racist somehow.

    Parent
    I have met hundreds of WV'ers now (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    and discussed race (as well as much else) with many of them.  And I heard hardly any racism -- far fewer examples of racism than I do in Wisconsin.

    Parent
    it was snark (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Or a bunch of cowards. That part messed (none / 0) (#146)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    up our state shape anyway. Just kiddin'!

    Parent
    don't forget bitter. very important! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:01:05 PM EST


    Parent
    John Kerry and Al Gore (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    are black?

    Because it seems to me the fact that the last two democratic nominees lost a democratic state implies West Virginians vote on issues other than race.

    Parent

    classy! NOT (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by moll on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:03:52 PM EST
    It's a blatant racist state, I lived there until 06.  Blacks' socioeconomic conditions are worse in WV than the MS Delta and Rio Grande.  Hillary has really gained bragging rights.  Hooplah, Hillary wins a state where the #1 state university, WVU, fraudulently gave the Governor's daughter a MBA to get a job.  You go HRC!!

    California is a blatantly racist state too.  I lived there and you wouldn't believe how many there are.

    Are we having fun with unfair, insulting generalizations yet?

    Why are you so afraid of democracy?

    Parent

    whoops (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by moll on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:07:14 PM EST
     
     
    It's a blatant racist state, I lived there until 06.  Blacks' socioeconomic conditions are worse in WV than the MS Delta and Rio Grande.  Hillary has really gained bragging rights.  Hooplah, Hillary wins a state where the #1 state university, WVU, fraudulently gave the Governor's daughter a MBA to get a job.  You go HRC!!

    California is a blatantly racist state too.  I lived there and you wouldn't believe how many there are.

    err....how many David Duke fans there are, I mean.


    Parent

    Oh plz. give the world a break (1.00 / 8) (#75)
    by Electa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    "So Obama partisans do not help their cause by willfully misrepresenting Clinton's reference to "hard-working Americans, white Americans" as racist rather than as a poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion."

    "Poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion"  Bill introduced the race card when it dawned on him that Barack was a serious competing force and he's sublimally played throughout the entire campaign.  Hillary knew perfectly well what she was saying playing to the racist appeal of "hard working" whites in WV.

    As the rethuglicans used to say over the 2000 election..."GET OVER IT".  Obama is the Democratic Nominee.

    Nice of you to (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by eric on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    aspire to such heights.  Get over it?

    How old are you?

    Parent

    Ah, Electa (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    Answer to question of "How old is Electa?"
    Not very.
    But I am sympathetic.
    I supported McGovern.
    Boy, was I mad when he got slaughtered like a hog in a pen.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:09:42 PM EST
    Thanks for an apt illustration of "Obama partisans not helping their cause."

    Parent
    Tee-Hee (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by leis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I Think That Should Be: "And Thanks For (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    playing obama partisans not helping their cause."
    No more contestants thank you....  :)

    Parent
    You people are unbelievable (1.00 / 5) (#139)
    by Electa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    if you can't take it then don't dish it out.  Just go back and read yourselves on this board.  I don't think you are haters here but you sure come across as bigots.  You see it doesn't matter one way or the other because McCain will win the GE.  If the SD give Hillary the nomination blacks will boycott the DP either by not voting in mass numbers or crossover.  If Obama wins then the good hard working whites like you on this board will vote for McCain.  So, McCain is your next president.  Looks like checkmate to me.  

    Parent
    Why do you assume we're all white? (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by leis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:39:49 PM EST


    Parent
    2 myths for the price of one! (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    If the SD give Hillary the nomination blacks will boycott the DP either by not voting in mass numbers or crossover.

    1. The superdelegates are going to have to give the nomination to one of them.

    2. There's no evidence that the black community will boycott, and I HIGHLY doubt any statistically significant amount of the community will vote Republican.


    Parent
    Math challenged much? (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by goldberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    Although it would be regrettable to lose AA voters, they make up only 12% of the US population and are heavily concentrated in Republican states like SC, NC, AL, GA.  If Obama is hoping that AA votes are going to carry him to victory in the GE, he's wrong.  They are barely giving him a lead right now and we're just talking about the Democratic party.  In the GE, the AA votes in swing states are going to be swamped by Republicans and independents.  
    Clinton, OTOH, could possibly pull Republican women over.  Women are ubiquitous and fairly evenly distributed in every state.  

    Parent
    Calling others names will get you banned (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    Knock it off with the 'bigot' garbage.  

    Parent
    Hard-working whites? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    I think not!  Try women--white, yellow, brown, and black.  We're the ones that see the vacuum that is walking around.  And if McCain is my next president--not sure I have given up anything of value.  If the dems don't value me, then guess what....

    Parent
    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    Did you really just call me a bigot?

    I hope you enjoyed your brief stay at this site.

    Parent

    The truth of the matter (none / 0) (#219)
    by Electa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    is Barack has won more states, more pledged and now superdelegates and the popular vote.  That makes him the champion. I find it ironic how the tides have turned..a reversal of sorts of the civil war.  Whites in the N. have now switched position with those in the S.  America is a strange kind of place.  

    Parent
    That's good, Electa (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by miriam on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST
    Way to win over the hearts and minds of millions of Clinton voters.  How does this help Obama's cause in the General Election?    

    Parent
    I thought it was millions (none / 0) (#149)
    by Electa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    of Democrats that voted.  Millions for Hillary...more millions for Obama.  The majority of Barack's millions polled they would vote for Hillary if she won.  The majority of Hillary's millions said they would rather vote for McCain.  So, who's millions are taking the high road.

    Parent
    abolish the voters! (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    we need new voters!

    Parent
    And the way to convince (none / 0) (#194)
    by eric on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    these Clinton voters to change their minds is to...continue taunt them!  Tell them to "get over it!"

    Parent
    Agreed. I am an Obama supporter and... (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    it really bothers me when people troll around clubbing others over the head.

    Hey, fellow Obama supporters, ever heard that you attract more flies with honey? Er...not that I think of Clinton supporteers as flies. ;-)

    Seriously, the time has come to quell our passions and recognize the simple truth that in a short time one of these two fine candidates will be our nominee. I, for one, absolutely, positively do not want a McCain presidency.

    Parent

    Obama Trolling Point #37 (TM) N/T (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Will you be willing to hear (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by standingup on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    "GET OVER IT" on November 5?

    Parent
    Get over yourself and give us a break. (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:45:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, we now see (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    that pledged delegates (not SDs) can change their vote before the second ballot at the convention.  I think some of us want to give them a chance to do just that.

    Parent
    the double standard here makes me sick. (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by moll on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    "So Obama partisans do not help their cause by willfully misrepresenting Clinton's reference to "hard-working Americans, white Americans" as racist rather than as a poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion."

    Question: is this or is this not in response to the suggestion that the black vote matters more than the white vote?

    is this or is this not twenty-nine separate instances of major Obama supporters using racial slurs that evoke images of white people being lazy? Everyone knows the picture of white trash includes them hanging out on their front porch (but Obama's supporters have been supplying images of dumb, lazy white folk in rocking chairs, just in case anyone didn't get the point).

    Obama only got this far by playing on racial double standards - slandering others as racists while he plays up racist themes himself.  

    Parent

    54-44-2... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    I think A-A turnout will be closer to 8%, Whites will break more like 62-38 and Edwards on the ballot will pick up 2-3 percent

    Which states has Obama won by 28? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:20:32 PM EST


    It doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    Even when Obama loses by 10, he wins! MSM Logic for the win!

    Parent
    Wow, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    he's had a steep decline lately hasn't he?

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:36:12 PM EST


    Parent
    DC not a state. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Nitpicker. Down to 56 states then. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually, 57 -- Obama said 57 (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    "and one more."  Is this what he meant by remaking the electoral map? :-)

    Parent
    Does that include Mi and FL? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Whites will go to Hillary 65-35 (none / 0) (#7)
    by Prabhata on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST


    And turnout? (none / 0) (#23)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    What will the popular vote totals be?

    Voter turnout (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    According to site, the last West Virginia primary had a total turnout of 432,228 and of that number Democrats comprised 296,658.

    If I'm correct, WV is a semi-open primary (independents and unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote).

    Parent

    That's Why Obama Writing WVA Off Is Troubling (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM EST
    Democrats outnumber Republicans in WVA.  What does it say about Obama's potential cross-over appeal that he's considering conceding a blue majority state to McCain in the fall?

    Parent
    The message doesn't change (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    Obama is going to pick up all the red states in the middle, and the 9 states only he knows how to reach. Oregon is so delighted with their new positioning at the Great Lakes, they are sure to favor him out of gratitude.

    I've seen plenty of moments where Obama's comments are full of "um's" and the responses are a series of "huh's".

    It goes to readiness. He's not mature enough, nor experienced enough to be doing what he's doing.  Aren't we lucky?

    Parent

    Oh, but he's expanding elsewhere! Just you wait. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST


    Parent
    do you mean popular vote now (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    ahead of obama? i hope she'll be ahead.

    Parent
    I heard that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    turnout in WV is heavy.  I'm predicting:
    Clinton - 68%
    Obama   - 30%
    Edwards -  2%

    Of course, that 30% will be reported (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    as the reason for good turnout, as ever -- all the Obama voters.  So it will be reported as Clinton losing a greater margin -- y'know, what she had a year ago or something, the usual Obaman mantra, too.

    That's my prediction on the media.  Their integrity will be well below that of the voters.

    Parent

    Ballpark guess (none / 0) (#37)
    by ajain on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    Clinton wins by 25-28 points, 150,000 vote margin.

    I have no idea if those two things add up, but then again this is just a wild guess.

    I predict KUSA will be the most (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    conservative prediction posted here.

    You rang? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    Based on past track records and the massive influence releasing our numbers has obviously had on these last few races, KUSA predicts an Obama rout of 38+ points over Clinton.

    Parent
    If KUSA is right this time (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST
    I am going to be very mad (shaking fist virtually)....

    Parent
    KUSA invited you to exam its record (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:31:40 PM EST
    We are not afraid of our past performance.  Based on our website, we have been correct every election.  Do pie charts lie?  (mmm...pie...)

    I have to admit, though, that I'm quite pleased to not have to scoop the margin of error while I'm up in NY on business.

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#56)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    I should predict the same!

    Parent
    how come so low? smile! (none / 0) (#68)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:00:32 PM EST


    Parent
    well... (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    despite best efforts, and KUSA's stated rule that we do not base our polls on anything relevant or concrete or scientific ("intelligent polling," is, after all, our trademark), and since in fact we don't even call folks up but instead see which way the cats lie in the sun as the largest indicator of which way the election will go (belly up for Obama, Spine up for Clinton), then peruse the litter box for the MOE, and, owing to a recent cold snap in Georgia and the fact that I am now at my place in New York, where there are no cats (let alone a litter box, because how weird would that be?), and then adding in here somewhere that perhaps I am indeed the biggest frackin' jinx alive...

    Obama by 90%.

    Parent

    Oh Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    (belly up for Obama, Spine up for Clinton)

    You are absolutely priceless.

    Parent

    Currently, Spine UP is 100% (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    including the dog  ;)

    Parent
    Predictions (none / 0) (#151)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:37:10 PM EST
    Clinton wins WV 65-32
    Obama doesn't win one WV county

    If it gets this far:
    Obama doesn't visit WV again before November
    Obama loses WV to McCain 66-33


    Parent

    my predictions didnt go so well (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
    last time.
    so I will just watch.  but it will be fun to watch the MSM spin themselves dizzy minimizing it.
    I may even watch MSNBC.

    Well.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    I'm horrible at these things, but the Clinton camp was pretty good last time. They said she'd lose big in NC and win a squeaker in IN.

    They say a win by 25 points? So be it. :-)

    So you will support John McCain instead? (none / 0) (#53)
    by kindness on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:54:22 PM EST
    man....that's one serious case of biting off your nose to spite your face.

    Are you forgetting (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    third party candidates? write-ins?

    Parent
    Yea...Ralph Nader really helped Al Gore (none / 0) (#66)
    by kindness on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
    in 2000, didn't he.

    My point was pretty plain.  Supporting a Democrat, any Democrat, is better than furthering a 3rd bush43 term.

    Parent

    Nader may get more votes than he did in 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST


    Parent
    You're right... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by NYCDem11 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    suporting Senator Obama is better for the country than supporting Senator McCain. But Froma Harrop touches on an important raw nerve: There are many who are deeply hurt and offended by the media's coverage of this process, along with the words and (in)actions of Senator Obama and, to a larger degree, his supporters. I know many women, for instance, who feel they have no other truly visible way to express their outrage than to leverage their vote for a candidate other than Senator Obama. Is that cutting off one's own nose? Yes. Better than placing many angry voters in this predicament in the first place would be for Senator Obama to step up and be a unifying leader, layering on the praise for the Clintons and rejecting this behavior from the media and supporters. I will vote for Senator Obama, but I completely relate to the urge to punish his supporters by not doing so.

    With respect to West Virginia, my guess is that Senator Clinton will get a bit more of the remaining 94% of the voters (taking out African Americans), as many may feel she devoted more in-person face time and simply "wants" it more. It's not enough to run more ads than your opponent. I am guessing (and hoping) she wins by at least 30%.

    Parent

    If Obama Wins (4.33 / 3) (#129)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:29:22 PM EST
    then loses in November, does that mean that the structure in the media that allows one candidte to be continually slandered gets dismanteled?  If that were the case, then I would definately NOT vote for him in NOV.  I don't believe, however, that anything will change if the dems lose.  The media will only tear the next popular candidate to shreads if she doesn't fit their preconceived notion of how a candidate should look and act.

    Another question; if Obama didn't campaign in VA, does that mean the delegates won't be seated?

    Parent

    the party (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    has constructed a system that is amazingly vulnerable to media manipulation.

    It is an internal operation last time i looked, but it's obvious that the press are like a gang of uninvited high school kids smashing up our house party for their jollies.

    Parent

    I Wish (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    The the 17 Million people who voted for Hillary ( that number is on this thread somewhere, and sounds right to me.  Don't screech about me using it; I trust it for now ) I wish each and every one would write a letter to MSNBS, CNN, etc. expressing their outrage over their efforts to distroy an otherwise viable candidate.  Then I would wish for a 4 year boycott on cable news and their sponsors.

    Parent
    He shgould take his name off the ballot (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:50:11 PM EST
    and claim half the votes

    Parent
    Is that cutting off one's own nose? (none / 0) (#212)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    My nose is just fine, thanks!  The air is cleaner out here.

    Parent
    That'snot true (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    Some people actually vote based on issues that are important to them like health care, competent child care, lowering gas prices and the economy.

    Talk is cheap. Hillary has a UHC plan, so does Nader.

    If you vote for some one who shares your values it's not a wasted vote, even if you are the only person voting for them.

    Parent

    what does democratic mean to you? (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by moll on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    My point was pretty plain.  Supporting a Democrat, any Democrat, is better than furthering a 3rd bush43 term.

    Sorry, but that worked last time - well, almost. The candidate lost anyway, but the Dems didn't care.

    This time around, they have done what they always do, chosen a candidate that half the party finds problematic. Only this time, they've gone too far. People are saying, I don't care if he is technically a (D), I don't intend to vote for this guy.

    And what does the party say?

    Oh, who cares about that person's vote.
    They'll come around.
    No need to listen to her.
    They'll be back.
    Ok to ignore them.

    Well, you can cast a ballot for a party that treats its members that way, if you like. But I won't. There is nothing about the letter D that is so magical I'll vote for it no matter what. The letter D stands for certain values and of the various D-brand values I care about, I just don't see them in this guy.

    I don't know yet how I will vote, but I have already vowed not to be bullied. Not again. Not this year. I gave my party my loyalty and it is abusing that trust, so I take that loyalty back.

    Parent

    OT musing (none / 0) (#80)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    Don't vote third party because they aren't viable; third parties aren't viable because not enough people vote for them.

    The irony is sad.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    if we let the dems get away with what they've done they'll keep doing.

    My point in voting for third parties is I don't WANT Obama to win, but I won't cast my vote for McCain.

    I want what's happening to stop.  And the only way to make it stop is if it doesn't result in a win.  

    Yes, the media has been bad, but has gotten a tacit endorsement of the DNC.  Then we have Kennedy (she's not a leader), Kerry (Limbaugh is the reason she won!), etc. etc. etc.

    Sorry, but this time, I for one won't be blackmailed by court appointments.  If the Dems don't want the court appointments, the congress can grow a spine.

    Parent

    Nader, and now Barr (none / 0) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:34:19 PM EST
    Add into the mix a big write-in campaign in the states that allow and Hillary could just move into the Whitehouse while the pundits go 24/7 trying to untangle the voting mess. GWB did it.


    Parent
    Barr is anti-war and pro-constitution (none / 0) (#182)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    If Hillary can forgive Richard Melon Scaife, I can forgive Bob Barr for the impeachment (that blew up in his own face).

    Parent
    Link please! (none / 0) (#214)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    Where does it say that Hillary has forgiven Scaife?

    And anybody who followed the impeachment trial could see that the prosecutors incl. Bob Barr had serious problems. The hypocrisy alone reminds of the folks who led the inquisition in Spain. Just saw "Goya's Ghosts." Scary.

    Parent

    That's your opinion and that's fine. The fact is (none / 0) (#224)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    that it is not shared by enough voters to carry Obama into the WH on Nov. 5.
    You may not want to entertain the thought right now, but you'll have to wrap your head around it.  November 6th may be when you will be forced to do.  History repeat itself and such is life.

    For me now, its all the way to Denver if Hillary takes it there, after that the Republicans will shred Obama if he is the nominee.  It will be Ciao Ciao for him

    Parent

    Once again, kindness (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM EST
    I'm not feeling the Unity.
    Work on that, if you please. ;)

    Parent
    unfounded IMO (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by moll on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    that's one serious case of biting off your nose to spite your face.

    No, it really isn't.

    Obama is not better than McCain on the issues that matter most to the working class. In some ways, he's much WORSE than McCain to them. People need to wake up and stop making this assumption, that Dems who vote against Obama are somehow hurting themselves. They are not the stupid children Obama would have you believe they are. They know where they stand on issues, no matter how many times you try to explain to them how stupid they are, or reassure them that they will indeed forgive and forget and come back to the party in Nov.

    The working class white voting bloc is going to go for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Anyone who understands their voting preferences knows it - that is why the media is downplaying WV, because they are actively manipulating the outcome.

    If you want a Dem win, it's gotta be Hill, or else you've got to successfully realign the party to pull in a LOT of Republicans, and then the party won't be very much like the party most of us joined. Obama will drive a huge chunk of Democrats into Republican territory. And Kennedy, Pelosi, Brazile, Kerry, etc. know this, but don't care, because they're looking out for themselves not the party.

    Parent

    I'll take 23 pts (none / 0) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    I'm going with Obama getting about 35.5% of the non-aa vote... The pt spread can move a point farther if Edwards takes some.  The more Edwards takes, the worse for Obama IMO.

    My prediction for WV: (none / 0) (#79)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:07:57 PM EST
    WV - Clinton 67% (19 dels), Obama 30% (9 dels) other 3%

    But let's consider the rest of the contests:

    KY - Clinton 65% (33 dels), Obama 35% (18 dels)
    OR - Clinton 44% (23 dels), Obama 56% (29 dels)
    MT - Clinton 44% (7 dels), Obama 56% (9 dels)
    SD - Clinton 44% (6 dels), Obama 56% (9 dels)
    PR - Clinton 60% (33 dels), Obama 40% (22 dels)

    With these numbers we end the voting season with Clinton at 1818 dels and Obama with 1965 dels.

    Wow.... (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    If we go by the delegates allocation over on mydd

    With FL/MI

    Clinton: 1890
    Obama: 1920

    With your estimation of remaining primaries
    Clinton: 121
    Obama: 96

    1890+121=2011
    1920+96=2016

    WOW!

    Could it really get that tight?
    And Edwards could actually be the swing vote with his remaining delegates.

    No wonder Obama wants to be crowned NOW!!

    Parent

    Seriously Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    Obama's reasoning has never been a secret, though.  He actually can't be assured of winning (the nomination) without keeping FL & MI out of the convention.

    And he can't be assured of winning the election if he does.

    Too bad.

    Parent

    I know I (none / 0) (#192)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    cried myself to sleep last night on that very thought.

    Parent
    Go to CNN.com/politics (none / 0) (#164)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

    My numbers are based on using this tool. We start with 1667 for Clinton and 1874 for Obama. Then I set the sliders as follows:

    WV - 68 C - 32 O  = 19 dels - 9 dels
    KY - 65 C - 35 O  = 33 dels - 18 dels
    OR - 44 C - 56 O  = 23 dels - 29 dels
    MT - 44 C - 56 O  = 7 dels - 9 dels
    SD - 44 C - 56 O  = 6 dels - 9 dels
    PR - 60 C - 40 O  = 33 dels - 22 dels

    **With these results we arrive at 1816 Clinton and 1970 Obama. Then I set the slider for the SDs to a very conservative 50/50 split for the remaining SDs, giving each 121. This raises the total delegate counts to 1939 Clinton and 2091 Obama. These are the numbers. You can set the sliders differently, but I think my numbers are reasonable. Unless the DNS changes the rules and brings in FL and MI Obama will have the nomination outright before PR votes. IF we factor in those two states, then, of course the totals change, but Obama will still have the lead in delegates and popular vote.

    I am not trying to persuade anyone to change sides. I am just pointing out the difficulty Clinton has at this point give the numbers. Please don't bite my head off. I completely respect every Clinton supporter here.

    Parent

    Again, it's not changing the rules. (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:50:37 PM EST


    Parent
    The problem is that MI/FL will count somehow... (none / 0) (#183)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    I'm also thinking that the DNC must be seeing the writing on the wall at this point with Obama's problems with certain demographics necessary to win the GE. Don't think for a minute that they won't include those delegates and "err on the side of democracy" if they really think that he cannot with the GE. Remember now, we're dealing with politicians when all is said and done.

    Parent
    cosbo -- how accurate is the MyDD count (none / 0) (#173)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    Shouldn't this be publicized more?

    Parent
    I have no idea how accurate it is... (none / 0) (#187)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    but I figure it's probably close. I think people should start screaming at the DNC to seat the delegates, with deep deeeep concerns about Obama's fall electability. Afterall, he does have problems with a few key demographics, doesn't he?

    Parent
    Do MI and FL (none / 0) (#84)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    count in those totals?

    Seems to me any legitimate nominee would stop pretending they exist and have some kind of solution for seating their delegates.

    Parent

    FL and MI are not in those counts (none / 0) (#99)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    I guess my point is that the remaining contests will be split and we will end the primary season right about where we are now, with Obama up between 130 and 150 dels. As we already know it willcome down to the supers. Personally, I think the trickle of SDs going to Obama will continue.

    Parent
    Sigh. (none / 0) (#100)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:17:11 PM EST
    I'm not typing negatives today.

    "stop pretending they DON'T exist."

    Parent

    I am not pretending they don't exist. (none / 0) (#119)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    The reality is that by the rules established before any primaries or caucuses began, only four states were allowed to hold early contests. The FL and MI legislatures and governors violated those rules.

    And even if the DNC grants Clinton the most favorable outcomes from FL and MI she will still train Obama in both the popular vote and total delegates.

    Please don't take this the wrong way, I am very agry that we find ourselves in this situation and it is unfortunate the the legislatures and governors of FL and MI chose to violate the rules, but they did and here we are.

    Parent

    Dude we are looking at at GE loss with Obama... (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    even the supers know it. They wouldn't be trickling out, one cowardly drip at a time, if they didn't have DEEEEEP concerns about Obama's Dukakis/McGovern Coalition. They would've all jumped and supported him already if they really thought he could win the GE.

    Parent
    This is an especially (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by eric on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:38:41 PM EST
    adroit point.  The fact that all of the delegates haven't already jumped aboard the Obama train must mean something.  Once Kerry became "inevitable", everyone was onboard right away.

    We can only conclude that either 1)Obama doesn't have this locked-up enough to make the delegates feel comfortable committing, or 2)the delegates simply don't have faith in Obama and are resisting.

    I believe that it is probably a combination of the two.

    Parent

    With respect, (none / 0) (#203)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    I think it has more to do with the fact that this contest is close. When the supers all jumped on board for Kerry, there essentially was no other viable choice. Here we have two candidates who are very close in total delegates. One candate (Obama) has a virtually insurmaountable lead in pledged delegates at this point, but still it is close enough that the supers do not feel comfortable yet jumping on board. But I do think we are seeing the beginnings of that move.

    Parent
    Respectfully, I disagree... (none / 0) (#171)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:45:56 PM EST
    I believe the supers want the process to play out to the end of the voting contests so that no one can claim that they short circuited the process.

    And I think Obama will be a strong GE candidate, should he get the nomination.

    Parent

    Funny thing about the rules (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    The rules leave punishment open to the discretion of the party.

    So people won't blame the state legislatures.

    They will blame the DNC.

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    no  obama needed them thrown out to get mo.

    you are not angry. Obama had to game it to win it.

    Parent

    She may not trail in popular vote... (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:34:24 PM EST
    and if you look a bit upthread, the delegate difference would end up to be less than 50.

    And the RULZ called for a 50% penalty in delegates. That's all they called for. The DNC could still invoke that rule and settle everything. Obama could have agreed to a re-vote and settled everything. They are, instead, trying to pretend they don't exist in order to give Obama a lead in popular vote and pledged delegates. (Not you, the DNC and Obama.)

    "The rules" argument is simply not relevant compared to the political reality here. If we want to win those states in November, we need to seat their delegates. A solution WILL be found. Will it be fair and equitable? I guess we'll have to see.

    And as for "the math?" Makes no difference, as you stated before.

    We really don't disagree much. My grievance is with the DNC and Obama, not you.

    Parent

    Does that include FL & MI? (none / 0) (#88)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    What then?

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#136)
    by ajain on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:32:18 PM EST
    There is a steady flow of super-dels on his side. That will speed up the process and declaration of a winner.

    Parent
    The media would say it to Al Gore's face.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    ...they don't like him either.

    Obama is in Missouri and MI (none / 0) (#98)
    by Saul on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    campaigning for the GE

    Guess he hasn't learned the basic lesson... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    don't count your chickens before they hatch.

    Parent
    It's the lesson GWB taught the candidates (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    we, the people, need to remember how these things keep happening.

    I saw a web poll on the Detroit news channel site that said 84% of the people were going to ignore his scheduled rallies. He's showing up tomorrow in MI.


    Parent

    Maybe he will explain to Michigan voters (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:27:22 PM EST
    why he wants their votes to count in November but not now

    Parent
    well, blees his heart (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:28:31 PM EST
    that's really nice of him to be helping out Clinton like that.  She'll need those states shored up for the ge.

    Parent
    It May Be Too Little, Too Late. It Will Be (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:32:41 PM EST
    interesting to see if MI voters pepper obama with questions about seating the delegates and why did he take his name of the ballot there.

    Parent
    Rush was having a fine time (none / 0) (#197)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:01:32 PM EST
    with that yesterday. The MO town Obama's in is Rush's hometown.

    The operative word for this particular trip is "rural."

    But Rush was quick to point out that his town has 25K+ people in it.

    Parent

    i watched rove last night. (none / 0) (#186)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    i don't admire him as a person but i have come to see his quite bright. i heard him talk about past conventions. the man could write an authoritative book on it.

    Clinton 72 - 24% (none / 0) (#215)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    With Edwards/the rest getting about 4%, in a grudge vote against a woman and a black man.

    Edwards is still on the ballot in WV

    My (none / 0) (#221)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    old home county, Washington, went 75-25 for Hillary  Washington, PA, the county seat is situated about halfway between Pittsburgh and Wheeling  It used to be one of the most solidly Democratic regions in the country.

    Along with Greene County, and Fayette County, all in southwestern PA , they went 75-25 for Hillary.

     I expect the same numbers in West Virginia tonight.  (Martinsburg , in the panhandle, may be more for Obama, but I would say there probably 60-40).

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#222)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    and I do not expect any of these counties to vote for Obama in the GE.  

    There sre some of the clingy, bitter people, you know.

    WV Prediction Thread | 215 comments (215 topical)