In all demographic categories, after he outspent her 2-1 and had the press telling voters that Obama was their next leader.

The West Virginia results are so much worse than earlier results because people have been repeatedly told Obama has the nomination won.  Yet, they still come out in large numbers to vote for Hillary?  That's what's known as sending a message.  

Increasingly blue and swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia seem out of reach for Obama.  He should concede for the good of the party.  

It will also help once he is clearly contrasted with John McCain, whose vision of America is nothing like Sen. Clinton's or Obama's. For all his maverick history, McCain has re-cast himself as a staunch conservative, with global warming as his only true maverick position.

In 1996, Bill Clinton only won 43% of the white vote, 43% of the Asian vote, and 84% of the black vote.

Obama will not only improve on that 84% black, but he'll grow it exponentially. If he can approach the 43% Clinton got, he'll be fine.

Obama does not have a white problem, he has (14+ / 1-)

a backwater inbred ignorant racist appalachian hillbilly problem.

And we can win without them. They will mostly just vote repub in the fall anyway.

There, I said it.

Forget about appalachia; let's look westward ho!

That is why I endorse Bill Richardson for VP, to build a new midwest & Hispanic Dem coalition.

I have had it with these freakin' appalachian backwater "Deliverance" freaks.

He arrogantly thinks that these people are just going to vote for him because McCain is so, so, much worse.

Even if he wanted to fix his electoral problems, which obviously he does not, I don't think he can. He is an east coast ivy league elitist. People don't vote for these candidates. They lose election after election. Obama will lose the election if he is the nominee. It will be the same as all the other similar candidates except that for the first time in 20 years there is an acceptable GOP alternative to many dems-John McCain. If he can't compete against Hillary in a democratic primary with those demographics don't expect him to be able to get them in Nov.

In state after state, Barack Obama is drastically underperforming John Kerry's general election numbers among whites among a voter pool almost entirely limited to Democrats.

In the Ohio Democratic primary, Barack Obama carried 34 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 44 percent of the white vote.

In Pennsylvania, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 45 percent.

In Missouri, Obama won 39 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 42 percent of the white vote.

This phenomenon occurs in states that aren't seen as teeming with those classic Rust Belt/Midwest demographics. In Connecticut, Obama carried 48 percent of the white vote; John Kerry carried 51 percent.

In New Jersey, Obama carried 31 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, Kerry carried 46 percent.

In Rhode Island, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election Kerry carried 57 percent of the white vote.

In Maryland, Obama carried 42 percent of the white vote; Kerry carried 44 percent in the 2004 general election.

There are a few states where Obama's primary percentage outpaces Kerry's general election share. In North Carolina, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 27 percent. (So much for help from John Edwards.)

In Indiana, Obama carried 40 percent of the white vote; Kerry carried 34 percent.

In New Mexico, Obama carried 55 percent of the white vote, Kerry got 43 percent. (Of course, in that state, Kerry carried 56 percent of the Latino vote (32 percent of the electorate that year), while Obama carried 36 percent of that key demographic in this year's caucus, according to exit polls.)