Letters to the Editor
-
65.5% to 30%?!?!
Are you kidding me? Tell me its not a bad sign when the candidate who everyone knows will most certainly lose the nomination beats the candidate everyone knows will most certainly win the nomination? I can barely get myself out to vote when I think my vote will make a difference. Seriously, though, this seems bad.
-
Obviously Hillary is popular in places where Obama isn't...
But the same can be said for Obama, just not by the same margins that she boasts in states with large uneducated white populations. There's no reason to believe that Hillary would have an easier time turning purple states like Kentucky and W.V. than Obama will have turning places like Virgina and Illinois.
-
Time to move on already
What Hillary is doing is a disgrace. She obviously plans to use backroom deals and political maneuvering to try to steal the nomination, and doesn't seem to care at this point if she hurts her own party or the country--it's become a race about her own ego. She keeps using some type of twisted math to justify why she is the "real" winner, claiming to have "won" a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot.
If the tables were turned and she had raised more money, and done her homework and won the most delegates and caucuses, Obama would have conceded by now.
-
It's not a bad sign
OK, I'll tell you, it's not a bad sign. It's not a good sign either, but candidates who have won their party's nomination don't win all the late primaries. You need to look at the trend. Clearly Obama has an Appalachia problem. Just as clearly he needs to address it, if not for himself then for the races down the ballot. However, that doesn't doom him. For all th chatter about him being unable to win rural votes, he's beaten Clinton in lots of rural areas. No, those areas weren't Appalachia, but that's the point: rural areas are hardly uniform beyond lack of density. In the general election, Obama's Appalachia problem can be matched by McCain's New England problem. Plenty of New England is rural, but do you want to run there as a Republican?
So, no need to panic, but I do admonish fellow Democrats/liberals to resist the temptation to make fun of voters and areas we aren't winning. When Republicans make fun of us city folk as effete snobs or whatever the pejorative of the day is, do we flock to vote for them? Look at how House Republicans refer to people in artistic and college towns, and tell me they can hope to pick up votes there (page 10): http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080514_nrcc_memo.html
Maybe that helps explain why here in the upper Midwest, the House Republicans are nearly reduced to just a suburban party.
-
Well, no big surprises today
What is more important than who won by what percentage is who walks away with more of a delegate lead. From the looks of things, Clinton has gained 16 or so delegates on Obama from these two races. This doesn't mean much, though, because Obama is still hundreds of delegates ahead of Clinton.
According to CNN's political web site, the new breakdown in delegates is: Obama 1953, Clinton 1770. That means Obama is ahead by 183 delegates.
It isn't that remarkable that Clinton won over Obama in Kentucky by a large margin. She won by a similar (larger) margin in West Virginia. Demographically those are both states that have always been expected to go to Clinton. Oregon is the same in reverse -- it has always been expected to go to Obama (though by not as wide a margin). It is simply a reflection of where each candidate's strengths lie.
It isn't exactly significant that people are still voting for Clinton even though the math is insurmountable for her. Most voters didn't get the memo on who is "inevitable." They just vote for whom they like most (or dislike least) on the ballot.
The remaining states are expected to go to Obama, probably by narrow margins. The delegate counts for each are fairly low and won't affect the outcome of the election in any significant way, though it is obviously better for Obama if he can make a solid showing there.
-
Rural votes
Sure Oregon went for Obama. But if you click on the interactive county map on the New York Times website, you'll see lots of rural counties in Oregon that went for Clinton, just as you'll see Louisville and Lexington going for Obama. It is a rural problem, not just Appalachia.
But as a native West Virginian who supports Obama, I am not prepared to give the state to McCain. It will only go McCain if Obama ignores it. Kentucky may be a little tougher but could also come around.
Obama could start by not sucking up to the coal industry, which he was inclined to do as a Senator from Illinois. Give some hope to people who want to move beyond coal.
-
Clinton's "From Day One" Now A McCain-ism?
The Washington Post has an interesting quote from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, who said that "Senator Obama again tonight launched the tired old political attacks of a typical politician, not the 'new politics' he's promised. America needs a commander in chief who is ready from day one." (see tonight's "Obama Takes Delegate Majority" article, 2nd graph down on page 2).
Is the McCain camp really going to be reduced to recycling Clinton campaign slogans going into the general? I know they're tight on funds, but seriously...
-
@mattcable
There's no reason to believe that Hillary would have an easier time turning purple states like Kentucky and W.V. than Obama will have turning places like Virgina and Illinois.
Ah, but there is. You'll find it a previous sentence in your post. It's calling 'respecting the voters'.
-
@Kate
What do you mean about not respecting voters?
-
HIllary would never win Kentucky in the GE
The Kentucky voters, most of whom are racist assholes, voted for the white person. In the GE, if Clinton ran against McCain, there are two white people. McCain would win big.
That's called respecting the truth, and not lying or bitching about stuff. How 'bout some of you Klintoonistas stop bitching?
-
@ KateTex
I'm not sure I totally understand your point, but I assume that you are implying I (and Obama?) don't respect certain voters because I refered to Hillary's (winning) base being uneducated white people. I am not being disrespectful by saying that, it's a quantifiable fact that has been stated by Clinton herself. Nothing wrong with being uneducated and white, but that's whose putting Hillary over the top where she's winning.