41 points - that is a SERIOUS problem for Obama

[Texas Hill Country]

look, i understand "the math" and how it is almost impossible for Hillary to win (eventhough that argument falsely assumes that super delegate endorsements are static), BUT for a "presumptive nominee" as pushed by the media and by the party itself, who has more money, outspends, etc etc... to lose a democratic primary by 41 points shows a HORRENDOUS weakness.

He has lost WV, OH, PA, TN by LARGE margins... and will loose by large margins in Kentucky... That is 65 electoral votes he prolly wont win vs McCain.

He is also unlikely to win in the deep south. There is the chance he could possibly win in places like the Carolinas, but its tough... possible, but tough.

Obama will also loose Florida most likely. That is another 27 electoral votes... that makes 92 electoral votes in swing states. McCain would be 1/3 of the way there in just "swing" states (or relatively so... i realize TN and KY will prolly still go Repub).


Sure, the massive win in WVA and the big wins in KY and PR that are expected probably wont help Hillary win the nomination...

BUT they should scare the crap out of Obama supporters for the GE.


I am not trying to argue that Hillary should be the nominee,


I AM NOT MAKING A COMPARISON OF OBAMA VS HILLARY!!!!



What I am trying to say is that Obama vs McCain makes me very nervous...

I am just wondering if any Obama supporters were effected by last nights results in a similar manner?

[grantcart]

1. Well Obama's shares on intrade actually have gone up today

[JoFerret]

123. How are beanie babies doing these days?

.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. Hillary v. McCain makes me nervous. The only way she could win at this point would be to

basically disenfranchise the AA community, and that would definitely hurt our chances in the general. We need to run up the metro area votes to combat the rural GOP votes in the swing states, and you know the turnout will be pretty good on the GOP side if Hillary is the nominee.

[Texas Hill Country]

42. doesnt even remotely answer my question

[Exilednight]

139. You asked a single querstion. The answer is .......

no.

[enid602]

94. both

Both your and the original post make perfect sense. Now, don't get me wrong; after our disastrous 7+ years of Republican Rule, I don't think Jesus Christ himself could win on a Republican ticket. But I feel we need the strength of an Obama/Hill ticket, just to ensure a broader base and ultimate victory.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. No. She'd be poison on the Democratic ticket.

Hillary on the ticket would scare away any potential crossover republicans or independents that Obama would attract. The way she could help would be to announce her clear and unequivocal support for Obama, and follow it up with campaigning as hard FOR him as she has AGAINST him. That could solidify her base behind him without the collateral damage of rallying the republicans against the ticket.

[loyalsister]

122. I hate like hell that she is in that position

It feels like a nasty set back for women to have to loyally "stand by the man" after the battle instead of moving on with alternate plans and personal lives and ambitions the way the men in the race will do as they campaign for Obama.
But, you are absolutely correct. That is the best way for her to help him.

[verges]

146. I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

This would be the best course even if the contest were between two men or two woman. Gender doesn't factor here at all.

Hillary's loss is NOT a setback for women. It is a step forward. Just not as big a step forward as many would have liked. There will be a female President in most of our lifetimes. Just not this time.

[loyalsister]

148. Case in point

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is launching a nationwide anti-poverty effort.

Edwards was in North Philadelphia on Tuesday to begin a campaign in partnership with ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It's designed to reduce poverty in the United States by 50 percent in 10 years.

Edwards used the Thankful Baptist Church as a backdrop for his announcement.

Attacking poverty was a keystone of his presidential campaign. He will serve as chairman of the national effort, called "Half in Ten."

Read more: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...

[verges]

155. But yet, he's endorsing Obama tonight.

Sen Clinton, after she's done campaigning for herself can then focus on moving on and campaigning for the Dem candidate. As Edwards seems to be going to do.

[ORDem]

141. Agreed! We need to think hard about how we're going to take more seats in Congress

and with Hillary on the ticket it just gets all that much more difficult because she'll energize the goopers.

[papau]

102. I agree we need a Obama/Hill ticket because Dems that call Hill "poison" will destroy party

[enid602]

105. yes

Where in the world did Team Obama ever come up with the idea that it's OK to vilify so one of our own? And then accuse (those of us who are pissed off by such brown shirt tactics) of being disloyal to the dems because we're lukewarm to the great one.

[verges]

151. I'm sorry, but...

she IS a divisive figure. too many people REALLY hate her guts. It's been that way since the Clinton's first came to the White House. Republicans-will-not-vote-for-her-in-the-GE! They voted for her in primaries because they WANTED her to get the nomination because she would be easier to beat. It's that simple. Even, because of this hostile campaign, many Democrats don't like her.

It's anecdotal, but I am in NE Ohio, which is one of the swing areas of a swing state; but I know many Republicans and Independents who like Obama and despise Clinton. If she is on the ticket, Obama will lose those votes. If I know a few, I'm certain there are others. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, and hardly concrete, substantiative fact. But I also remember my days in the Navy during the Clinton Presidency. He was hated. She was even more hated. And that gave more of a cross-section (geographically) of the population.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. I think you underestimate the hatred for her held by the republicans.

Millions who would stay home rather than vote for McCain will come out to vote AGAINST Hillary if she is anywhere on the ticket.

It may look different to you up there in MA, but hereabouts it is fact. Obama can win NC in the GE. Hillary can't. Neither can Obama/Hillary.

[Yukari Yakumo]

134. Actually...

She would cripple our chances in November.

Without the AA vote, our fortunes do not look good in states like MI and PA.
Plus HRH HRC being HRC, the GOP base will come out in force, resulting in the loss of several swing states.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

3. First, it's "lose."

Second, Hillary's margins in PA and OH were nowhere near her WV margins.

[Texas Hill Country]

20. round about 10pts each... that is a decent margin, and yes he won other states handily, but

it doesnt change the fact that he issues in some pretty imporatant electoral states.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

25. Hillary has far bigger issues.

Like losing way more states, delegates and being $20 million in debt.

I'll stick with Obama.

[Texas Hill Country]

71. ok, great, stick with obama, but does his weakness in those states and in that demographic worry you

[msallied]

78. Why is it that people try to apply outcomes in the primary to the

General Election?? It's getting pretty effing old.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

114. Slightly, but he's not the one with 60% negatives.

Between Obama and Hillary, he has a better chance.

[verges]

154. I wasn't who you were asking

but I'll answer anyway:
Nope. Presumably, most Hillary Democrats will get past their disappointment and realize that the alternative of Sen McCain (Republican) is much, much worse. In addition, I truly believe that Sen Obama can bring in more independent and cross-over voters (two large segments lost if Sen Clinton is on the ticket). In addition to this, the Republicans are really in disarray themselves. A LARGE portion of their base hates their own candidate: John McCain. On top of even this, McCain (Republican) is incredibly vulnerable. He advocates staying in Iraq for the next 100 years if necessary! Considerably more than half of all Americans want us out of there. Americans are weary of reading about more deaths of our young people on a far away land for nothing. The Republican John McCain also admits that he knows nothing about the economy. Currently, the country seems to be in the most unstable economic times in several decades! This should help to regain the support of Michigan. In addition to all this: he is old. In other candidates, this might not be such a big issue. But Republican McCain looks old, and seems in frail health. After the strain of a single term (assuming he can survive), could he possibly run for a second term? Four years is not really long enough to accomplish anything positive (which he couldn't do anyway). There is no point in electing a known single term President.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Was your faith in Hillary shaken by states like Idaho and Kansas and Wisconsin?

Why should Obama supporters give a fuck about WV?

[knixphan]

ding ding ding!

there ya go.

[ShortnFiery]

5. B.S. 19 delegates is not "a big problem"

[Kittycat]

16. 17 if you count DC & VI. All wins over the 60% line for Obama

He has the chance to improve our standings, and put far more states in to play than Clinton. Also, in many of the states he lost to her, he's polling better now - some better than her (IE. California). Additionally, many of the states he lost - he will still win in November anyway. Unless you honestly think New York is going to vote Republican (which I'm sure you don't) ;)

[ShortnFiery]

47. Agreed. VA can go BLUE with Obama this November. :-) eom

[Texas Hill Country]

66. it goes blue with both of them... but NH goes red with Obama fyi

[ej510]

89. VA ain't voting for Hillary.

[aquarius dawning]

147. Virginia ain't voting for either of them.

The demographics may favor a Democrat in certain districts now but, in a winner take all simple plurality election, the demographics do not favor Obama or Hillary and all polling data supports that.

[Carrieyazel]

160. It can, but it really is a long shot. I think he'll lose it and NC, although close.

You're talking about states that still have large sections of rural areas with a lot of (R) leaners. Everything would have to go right to win in these two states.

[mmonk]

6. Hillary has had some whopping defeats as well.

West Virginia doesn't change that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. Those don't count. WV and KY are the New Bellweathers. nt

[mmonk]

109. Thanks for the clarification.

"Democracy" can be confusing sometimes.

[truedelphi]

7. I suggest everyone of us who wants Obama start discussing a separate area of the country where

We can all agree to move, and then secede, and then let the rest of the country pursue a hundred years of war, etc. while we go for Nationalized Single Payer Health, organic food, decent schools, and other progressive policies.

[Radical Activist]

8. No, he didn't lose OH and PA by large margins. They were close.

You also seem to forget his huge victory in VA and Maryland. Take your false distractions and negativity elsewhere.

[paulk]

36. considering he outspent his opponent by at least 3 to 1

any defeat in those states should be taken seriously. He also spent more money than HRC in WV.

[Shakespeare]

41. Ah, but he also chipped away at a huge Clinton lead in those states.

So, no, still not a concern.

[greguganus]

54. Duh. He has more money to spend due to more people who believe in what he stands for,

unlike hillary who has to lend her campaign money because she's about the only one who believes in her lies.

[Texas Hill Country]

69. apparently not in those states.

[enid602]

100. Team Obama

And Obama's team managed to propagate the notion that Hill and Bill are bigots, that they worked against progressive causes during their tenures and were solely responsible for NAFTA's ills, the Iraq War and all the other things that might more logically be attributed to the Bush crowd. When she fought back, they painted her as an emasculating she-devil from Hell. These tactics may work in a primary setting, but they spell disaster in the GE. Thanks, Obama for ruining our chances. I hope he has to beg her to take a VP spot, because it may be our only chance.

[spooky3]

124. This is a very precarious argument, especially when you extend it to Republicans as well.

Equating the money raised with people's beliefs in a candidate is problematic on many levels.

If Republicans raise more money than Democrats, does that mean that more people belief in their message?

Although Obama has done a great job of attracting many small donors, the vast majority of his total $ have come from larger donors. That's true for most other candidates as well (not for Kucinich, for example, but he was an exception). But the point is that big money, not lots of little donors, still makes the biggest difference and Clinton and Obama emerged as the front-runners in part because both were better at attracting big money donors than were the other candidates. It's fair to say that they appealed to more people than did the other candidates. But it's hard to say whether their ability to attract the big money was a cause or an effect of this appeal. They could have attracted more money in part because both were seen as less threatening to wealthy interests than were other candidates.

This argument also fails to consider whether there is something fundamentally wrong with our money-driven politics.

[Radical Activist]

150. She started the race with more money, far more name recognition and establishment support.

The fact that he's winning speaks to his strength and her weakness as a candidate. She had every advantage in the world and lost.

[Window]

9. No. This is how we feel about last night's results:

Hillary moves one more step further from reality!

After tonight’s meaningless West Virginia Victory, Senator Clinton’s speech took on a disturbing turn from reality. She believes she can win this nomination. She believes she can reinvent mathematics. She has left politics. She’s in another zone. We need Freud NOW! First it was Bill exploding in front of the world, yelling and screaming at Obama’s supporters. They hid Bill. Twice. He has now disappeared but she’s still here, and the scary thing is that she doesn’t understand she has lost the election. It’s time to go. It’s time someone told her but who? Who will put the bell on the cat’s tale? No one likes to play with a wounded tigress. Next week should finally make her come to understand that winning is not everything, sometimes whatever dignity is left is also a consideration, at least for the voters who are following this race.

http://rafaelmartel.com/2008/05/13/hillary-moves-one-more-step-further-from-reality/

Funny 30 sec. video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPL2vGR_ULk&eurl=http://rafaelmartel.com/2008/05/13/hillary-moves-one-more-step-further-from-reality/

[stray cat]

10. Only a problem if he is running against both McCain and Hillary in the GE

Just because I voted for Edwards in the primary doesn't mean I won't vote for the dem nominee.

[BlooInBloo]

11. I assume you're joking.

[Occam Bandage]

12. Not really, no. Obama isn't relying on poor, rural, elderly, uneducated whites to win.

Every vote counts, of course, but that's McCain's base, not his. WV isn't going to Obama in the GE, and I'm fine with that; he's making that up elsewhere.

[rucky]

13. McCain got 1% in WV. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. Well, obviously, if neither McCain nor Obama can take WV

then WV is going to be sitting this one out.

[AtomicKitten]

14. The problem is Hillary's: She won WV but lost the nomination.

[skipos]

15. You know Hillary had enormous losses in the last few weeks too, right?

it is a close race, and each candidate is going to continue to have big wins and small wins. Overall, Obama is winning though.

[Schema Thing]

17. Let.It.Stink.

[RichardRay]

18. Nope, not a bit...

In none of those states did he lose against the person he'll be running against.

As some poster said in another thread, "It's not a head to head race until there are only two heads in the race."

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama score quite similarly in match ups against McCain, and those are match ups done now, before the Democratic nominee has actually campaigned against McCain.

Now, if someone tells me that Senator Clinton will throw her support behind McCain, then I'd be worried, but I don't believe she'll do that.

(edit for spelling)

[jgraz]

19. Y'know, as a Hillary supporter, you really should learn how to spell "lose"

Seriously, it's going to come in handy over the next few weeks.

[hisownpetard]

59. !!!!

:toast:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[ellacott]

22. He didn't lose by LARGE margins in those states

In Tx. she won by 4% of the primary vote but lost the caucus in that state. In Ohio and PA. the loss was withing double digits.

[Quixote1818]

23. Hillary on the other hand, has 50% of the population that says they will never vote for her.

I think that is a bigger problem.

[Texas Hill Country]

40. i am not making a comparison vs hillary... i am making one vs McCain

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Texas Hill Country]

28. not fake, i am a Dem that wants to win the white house and the fact that he will lose the

Iron/Rust belt AND florida freaks me out

[cliffordu]

62. Calm down. He's better at recruiting new voters

than anyone in the history of this country, except the founding fathers.

McCain has to get mad exactly ONCE.

I cannot wait until the debates begin.

We'll be fine.


Hillary? All they have to do is fade photos of McCain being pulled from that lake where the North Vietnamese shot him down with her lie about Tuzla and there ain't a veteran in the US that will vote for her.

[woolldog]

26. No.

Only if you think WV, KY, and PR are somehow representative of the rest of the country. They are not, especially when it comes to attitudes about race (not including PR here).

Since when did people start thinking that WV and KY are bell weathers for the Democratic nomination. I must have missed that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5962206

[cali]

27. no, it's really not. And he lost OH and PA by under 10. Hill

lost 15 states by over 15. Obama is doing well in head to heads against McCain. He ran a brilliant and well organized campaign against Clinton. He'll do the same against McCain, and McCain has serious problems of his own, including his age, his lack of popular support in his own party, money, scandals, and a better atmosphere for dems.

[4_Legs_Good]

121. Can you even imagine how great his campaign will be when he can talk about issues!?!?!

I mean, the fact is that Clinton and Obama are close on the issues - not exact, but close.

When he can actually contrast in substance as well as style, he is going to kick some royal f*cking ass.

I'm SO looking forward to the best campaign in my lifetime.

David

[4_Legs_Good]

29. Because Obama lost PA and OH does NOT mean that they'll be red in November!!!

I'm so sick of that stupid argument!

Given the choice between Clinton and Obama, by approx 10 percent, Democrats in PA and OH would prefer Clinton. That does NOT mean they'd prefer BushIII to Obama or any Democrat.

California and New York went for Clinton, and nobody has any doubt that it'll go for Obama in November. This argument is really silly.

Now, granted, he may have a hard time in WV and KY and TN (A state that Gore couldn't even win!), but by your estimation, Clinton would have to worry in a GE about CO, WA, MO, NC, VA, ME, CT, DC, MD, DE, IL, MN, WI, IA, NE!

It just doesn't make sense! You can say that Clinton would be stronger in these Blue Collar states, that's fine, but please stop with the rediculous argument that says that if Obama loses a state in the primary that it's going McCain in November.

David

[Texas Hill Country]

34. I DIDNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CLINTON!!! SAID SPECIFICALLY I WAS NOT COMPARING THEM!!!

jesus friggin christ...


get off the primary competition and actually answer the question I was asking.

[4_Legs_Good]

116. Obama not winning a primary automatically involves Clinton!!! He LOST to Clinton

She *IS* part of the equation by the very notion of him being able to LOSE. If he were running only against "uncommitted" or "none of the above" then your comment would make sense!

Next: The only question I saw in your OP was "I am just wondering if any Obama supporters were effected by last nights results in a similar manner?"

I thought the answer to that was pretty clear.

Clearer:

NO, I was not affected the same way by last night's results. I don't expect Obama to take WV, KY or TN (well, maybe). I *DO* however expect he'll take OH and PA. Those states he LOST ***TO*** HILLARY CLINTON because the states are more alligned with her than they are with him. That certainly doesn't mean that he'll lose them in November. I don't think he will. And I think he'll carry several border states like NC, VA, CO, MO, NV, OR, NE, IA, IN, SC, and make states like TX, GA, MI, LA competitive.

Given a choice between Dennis Kucinnich and Barack Obama, I'd choose Dennis, but given a choice between Obama and any republican I'd choose Obama in a heartbeat.

Sorry if you feel I'm missig the point. Maybe I am, but, again, NO last night's results don't mean a damned thing to me as far as the General goes.

Incidentially, I think Clinton would easily carry November as well. They're both highly electable (as were Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Richardson), and only something nutty happening will keep either out of the Oval Office.

David

[jgraz]

37. Unless you're saying that running against Hillary is EXACTLY like running against a Republican

Y'know, that's an argument I could almost agree with...

[bowens43]

30. No , it isn't a serious problem.

Look at Obama's big wins, they far out number hillary's.

[Texas Hill Country]

61. but in those states, and in those demographics, he has a serious weakness... if you arent worried,

why?

[Vinca]

31. So what about all the states where he beat her by similar margins?

All bigger states, by the way. Isn't that a "serious problem" for Hillary?

[Texas Hill Country]

35. once again, i specifically said i was not making a comparison to hillary... JESUS

[Shakespeare]

43. You're not a "big picture" kind of person, are you? n/t

[Vinca]

57. I don't get the point of your post then. He's beaten her by large

numbers in several states. This is the second or third big win for her. What's the big deal? I might have been shocked if he'd campaigned in West Virginia, but he only made 1 visit to the state and ceded it to Hillary before one vote was cast.

[Texas Hill Country]

85. her win merely highlights how weak he is in those states and in those demographics, and they are

both very important for the GE.

what happens in those states when he is competing vs a "viable" candidate and not one he has "already beaten"?

[Vinca]

113. But can you assume that the voters who voted for Hillary

will automatically not vote for Obama? Their stand on the issues is nearly identical and both of them are far different from McCain. Would Democratic voters be willing to sacrifice abortion rights (just one issue) because their candidate wasn't the nominee? I don't think so. If there are voters who won't vote for Obama because he's half black, they can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

[WeDidIt]

32. That anybody makes it some sort of big deal is laughable

This is the second state Hillary carried with more tha 20% of the cote.

Obama has 13 like that.

So making this some sort of fat hairy deal is not just laughable, it's pathetic.

[Upton]

Obama will win Pa.

last two polls, Susquehanna and Quinnipiac show him leading McCain by 7% and 9% respectively. Then there's Rendell's machine, and Pa. should be no problem come the GE.

[Barack_America]

64. He most certainly will.

Philly is going to go nuts. I can hardly wait.

[Overseas]

33. SERIOUS problem if nomination is taken from pledged delegates too. //nt

[Texas Hill Country]

63. not the question presented

[WA98296]

38. No. What, do you work for HRC? Shame on attempts to divide the party.

[Drunken Irishman]

39. You can't compare PA and Ohio to WV.

They're not even comparable. Obama didn't lose huge in either Ohio or PA, especially when you consider he lost by less than 10 points in both states, after trailing by nearly 25.

[Texas Hill Country]

48. according to head to head polls vs McCain, he still loses both

[Drunken Irishman]

56. And polls today don't mean crap.

Because the same polls have Hillary Clinton LOSING West Virginia to McCain, even after her campaigning there non-stop for a week.

I'm sorry, but it's May, not November. Polls today are pointless, because they don't reflect the nature of a true GE campaign.

[Upton]

70. What poll is that?

Pa I mean. The latest polls, Susquehanna and Quinnipiac both show him leading McCain there. Only an older Rasmussen shows McCain ahead and that's by 1%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html

[woolldog]

79. What polls are you talking about?

The latest Susquehanna poll (5/4/08) has him up by 7. The latest Quinnipiac has him up by 9.

[4_Legs_Good]

117. I show him losing by one point in OH and winning by 7 points in PA

And, again, these head-to-head polls are meaningless, because, even though they try to propose a 2 person race, they actually still include the third person.

Once it's 100% down to two, McCain is done.

David

[barack the house]

44. The win was expected way back, if folks checked polster.com very accurate.

Not nervous at all he has proved everyone wrong time and again at least give him credit he is smart. We shall overcome stayed motivate we are getting there.

[JimGinPA]

45. I Didn't Know Pat Buchanan Posted Here

[Texas Hill Country]

50. thanks for the snark

[JimGinPA]

96. What Snark - You're Quoting Him Verbatim...

If you're not him you're his surrogate.

[whatchamacallit]

46. Ever see that bit in movies or on TV where someone's mouth is moving, but all we hear is trombone?

Yeah, this OP is like that.

[still_one]

49. Not at all. A year ago Hillary was the so-called "presumptive" nominee

Obama at most was a second thought

In fact, if it wasn't for the limbaugh effect, via exit polls, he would have won Indiana.

The Clinton's came to this campaign with money and a political intrastructure in place. Obama had none of that, and in a short period of time put it all together

It not only demonstrates his ability, but highlights Clinton's weakness in the way she ran her campaign

According to history, the Democrats should have NEVER won the 2006 election, when an incumbant party was in place. The unthinkable happened

We are going to witness history

[Texas Hill Country]

53. is everyone completely incapable of actually answering the question presented?

[still_one]

88. I just did, it isn't a serious problem for Obama. This is a primary NOT a general election

The issues in the general election are VERY clear:

If people believe they are better off than they were 8 years ago, mccain will win
otherwise, mccain will lose

The issues are:

The Iraq War
Jobs and the economy
healthcare
social security
medicare
the Supreme Court
the environment
etc.

It won't matter WHO the Democratic candidate is, THE DEMOCRATS WILL WIN THE WHITEHOUSE

Is that clear enough?

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. They might, if it were a serious question.

But as it is only intended to seed doubt and misgivings withing the Democratic ranks, nobody is going to take it seriously.

[Liberal Gramma]

144. I think you've had a number of answers

just not the ones you've been looking for. No, I am not concerned. His ability to generate new votes offsets the loss of the white bigot vote.

[IronLionZion]

51. Your faux concern is noted, as is your ignoring of his landslide wins.

"I AM NOT MAKING A COMPARISON OF OBAMA VS HILLARY!!!!" :rofl:

[Texas Hill Country]

58. i wanted to talk about the GE, and the weakness in the Rust Belt is a serious problem that was

highlighted by his loss last night...


That worries me re: the general election, but if you are incapable of discussing that far ahead, so be it.

[Occam Bandage]

74. Don't conflate the Rust Belt with Appalachia. They are completely different areas.

PA/MI/OH is not WV/KY.

[IronLionZion]

104. Yet McCain got 1% in WV. Why does McCain have weakness in WV.

WV is actually NOT rust belt btw. How come you aren't concerned about why Huckabee and Romney dominated WV back in Feb.?

Next thing you'll say it's a problem that Obama got 0% of Michigan.

Obama didn't campaign much in WV just like Hillarity didn't do much in Minnesota and other important states. Candidates do better in states where they campaign in. If he simply shows up and talks to people before the general election, he'll win some over. He's done that consistently by narrowing the gap significantly in states like PA and Indiana.

Frankly, I'm more worried about you. Are you going to support the Democratic nominee?

[Melinda]

52. Wow, Gorky had nothing on you!!

The aim of propaganda is to actively influence people's opinions, rather than to merely communicate the facts about something. For example, propaganda might be used to garner either support or disapproval of a certain position, rather than to simply present the position. What separates propaganda from "normal" communication is in the subtle, often insidious, ways that the message attempts to shape opinion. For example, propaganda is often presented in a way that attempts to deliberately evoke a strong emotion, especially by suggesting non-logical (or non-intuitive) relationships between concepts.

Well done, new DU member!! You are the new and bestest DU Minister of Propaganda EVER!!!

[Rob Gregory Browne]

55. Reminder: This isn't the General Election

It seems that people have to be regularly reminded of this simple fact. What happens in the Primary, with two Dems battling each other, has little or nothing to do with how a state will swing in the General.

This is a non-issue, and any concerns anyone may have about Obama could easily be addressed if Hillary would do the honorable thing and step aside. Yes, I know, she has the right to go on, etc., etc., but at this point it's all about vanity and nothing else.

As for Obama v McCain, don't sweat it. Childers' win in conservative Mississippi perfectly demonstrates how much trouble the GOP is in this year. Obama will not lose.

[Texas Hill Country]

60. so does he weakness in the demographic and in those states worrying to you or not? If not, why?

[Occam Bandage]

68. Because "rural, poor, uneducated, older whites" is a very narrow demo, and one

that Democrats do not rely on in order to win.

[Barack_America]

80. Does Hillary's total inability to connect with Midwestern voters worry you?

If not, why?

Listen, both candidates are stronger in different states. No candidate is going to take all of them. The truth of the matter is that Obama has won more swing states than Hillary. Is he going to win Florida, West Virginia and Kentucky? Probably not. Is he going to win Ohio? There's a good chance he will. Is he going to win PA? Absolutely. Is he going to clean McCain's clock in the Midwest? Certainly. And that's where the money's at (electorally-speaking), IMO.

[CakeGrrl]

Because WV is an outlier when you look at the states he's won with large margins

There will ALWAYS be a racist / sexist anti-candidate bloc, but the sheer fact that Clinton isn't winning debunks any claim that it's THE issue.

As has been said, when the real stakes are on the line in the GE - versus simply picking which Dem to send to it - I expect to see higher voter turnout, in no small part due to Obama's ground game, and the crossover support from Independents and non-Limbaugh Republicans will show up to continue to support him in the GE.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

157. Because this ISN'T the general.

When everything falls into place and Obama is the nominee, those who voted for Hillary will vote for Obama. Especially when Hillary backs him. Yes, he'll lose some of them, but not enough to make a difference.

The general will be a blow out in Obama's favor. Mark my words.

[Carrieyazel]

159. You're comparing congressional races with a Presidential race.

They're not the same thing. Yes, the GOP is in free-fall and will get crushed down the ballot all over the country, but the Prez race is a diffrent animal. It's more on personality, silly little issues, and winning in the electoral college. Obama could easily lose this.

[Renew Deal]

65. 2025 is a more serious problem for Hillary

That's what you should worry about.

[totodeinhere]

67. As pessimistic as you are of Obama's chances in the general,

perhaps we should just nominate McCain right now and get it over with.

But seriously, with the sad state this country is in right now after eight years of the shrub and his cronies, any Dem including Obama should win going away.

[Texas Hill Country]

75. you would think... but we thought the same thing in 2004, and McCain appeals to Indys too, unlike W

[Occam Bandage]

77. And Obama can hold more indies against McCain than Clinton can. Problem?

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. Maybe McCain does appeal to indys

but he DOESN'T appeal to hard-core republicans which for him is a much bigger problem.

I wouldn't worry on that score.

[Sherman A1]

72. Looking at the vote totals for WV

I noted that even with Obama losing to HRC in this primary, he still brought in more total votes than did McCain (who as presumptive nominee, we might point out only got 76% of the Republican vote). So even in losing, he beat the Republican in total votes. I am not too concerned by that at all.

[Texas Hill Country]

81. great, thank you for the answer. you are the first one to actually answer the question.

[Occam Bandage]

83. I count at least ten posts answering the question. You must have those posters on ignore.

[woolldog]

86. I answered your question. You ignored it.

[Sherman A1]

145. Well, we do what we can...

My following of the primaries thusfar is essentially my response to your question. Democratic turnout is overwhelming as we all know, but look at it compared with Republican turnout. In many states it's 2 or 3 to one. Yes, the Democratic race is far more interesting in general and the Republican race was long ago decided, but look at even the January and February numbers. The general election will be different certainly, but I am not sure that much different. Gut feeling is HRC vs McCain it will be close and could go either way. Obama vs McCain it will be a complete blowout for the Democrats, with McCain lucky to win much of anything. That's my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own, I am sure that you have one that may or may not differ from mine. One of us might be right, we both may be wrong, who knows?


:toast:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

76. Thanks for your concern. nt

[GihrenZabi]

82. Not a concern

Proper Democrats are not going to vote for McCain. They'll vote for whoever runs on the Dem ticket.

Independents have been flocking to Obama all year. There's no reason to think that they will not continue to do so in the GE - and don't forget Dean and the DNC waiting in the wings to unleash hell on McCain, and the fact that McCain is getting a total pass in the media right now.

Obama will make it happen. At this point, it's just a matter of getting this bloody primary wrapped up.

[redqueen]

93. Yup.

Really lookin forward to 6 more months of this.

[redqueen]

84. This is just sad. (nt)

[Texas Hill Country]

87. why? do you not think Obama has some serious weaknesses in key states and demographics?

[redqueen]

92. I think it's far too early to speculate, seeing as how the campaign vs. McCain has barely started.

And I think most people know that that is the case.

[Skidmore]

90. Obama is playing chess, and Hillary is playing checkers on a Snake 'n Ladders

board. I think that old red/blue map that the media and McCain and Hillary appear to be playing off of is obselete. This is a new century and a new landscape.

[Texas Hill Country]

91. why? how? please explain, i would like to know.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

120. I think he's referring to Hillary's Blue States +1 strategy.

Pick up all the blue states we normally get, plus OH or FL.

Obama's running a real 50-state campaign. While he likely won't turn deep-red states blue, he could possibly flip some swing states, particularly in the Mountain West and Southwest.

[Creideiki]

95. Pennsylvania still leans Democrat

regardless of who is the nominee.

Ohio is in play with Obama as nominee. (Ohio and Pennsylvania both lean Democrat with Clinton.)

[anonymous171]

97. He only campaigned there once though. You have to take that into account.

[Lucky 13]

98. Hillary lost ID by 63, HI by 52, AK by 50, DC by 51, KS by 48, WA by 37, NE by 36, GA by 35....

No. I'm not worried. West Virginia is an anomaly. Obama is strong and is bringing new states into play that Hillary simply would not be able to. Consider these figures posted last night in a thread by book_worm:


Hillary's 20+ point victories
Arkansas +44
Oklahoma +24
West Virginia +41

Obama's 20+ point victories
Alaska +50
Colorado +34
Georgia +35
Idaho +63
Illinois +32
South Carolina +28
Kansas +48
Minnesota +34
North Dakota +24
Louisiana +24
Nebraska +36
Washington +37
Maine +20
DC +51
Maryland +25
Virginia +29
Hawaii +52
Vermont +20
Wyoming +23
Mississippi +24

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. Obama won WV by ten percent. I don't see the problem.

(I rounded up to the nearest double digit win)

[CreekDog]

106. if only you hadn't cried wolf at every other opportunity

but by calling everything "serious" you imply that nothing is really serious. :eyes:

[book_worm]

107. is it a big problem all 20 of the states Hillary has lost by more than 20-points?

[zulchzulu]

110. When 4 in 10 are over 60 and 7 in 10 didn't go to college, it's a skewed demographic compared ...

...to other states.

West Virginia is in the basement with an uneducated population and a soured economy. It is in the skids, and has been so for many years. The young leave as soon as they can. The old and uneducated stay. Are they open to progressive ideas and change? No.

If the whole country was like West Virginia, we would be in a lot of trouble. Fortunately, other states have a more balanced demographic that find Obama appealing. To say that the whole country is going the way of West Virginia is absolutely intellectually dishonest.

[stevietheman]

111. A single-digit win in PA is not "large" n/t

n/t

[lojasmo]

115. No.

[myrna minx]

118. Obama's GE tracking numbers are rising, and once he's not fighting a two front

campaign against Hillary and McCain, he will be able to focus on the states that have been neglected by the Democratic party for years, as well as spend time in the swing states like Ohio and Florida. He has barely begun to campaign against McCain, because he has been in a primary race with Hillary. Look at our victory in Mississippi last night. That to me is a far better bellwether that the results in a primary in WV. I'm very confident in his campaign machine. I know it won't be easy, but I know that this country is ready for a Democratic President again, and I think that person will be Barack Obama.

[casus belli]

119. So by your logic, does Obama's 12 blowouts to her 2 make him the better candidate?

I'm just sayin'...you can't have it both ways.

[Teaser]

125. Appalachia needs work but

we can win without it.

[amandabeech]

126. Well, I think that Obama has his work cut out for him in a few states.

Out west, I think he'll get the Pacific Coast, plus NV, NM and CO, which Kerry didn't get.

In the Midwest, I think he'll pick up Iowa, but may lose Michigan. WI (according to recent polls), Ohio and MO will be nip'n'tuck. He'll get MN, and IL.

In the East, he'll get the Kerry states except possibly PA and NJ.

In the South, he has a good chance of picking up VA and maybe one or two of the Carolinas. It will be close.

Lower middle income to poor whites may be a problem for him in Michigan, Ohio, PA, MO and maybe Virginia and WI.

I think to get Pennsylvania, he'll have to play ball with the Philadelphia machine in order to maximize turnout.

Yes, it does make me a little nervous because I think that states that haven't gone dem in a long time will stay that way for the most part, despite very nice wins in caucuses and primaries.

I supported Edwards, by the way, and will support the nominee, whomever it is. I just want to win.

[Blue_In_AK]

127. Personally, I've thought all along that both of these candidates

have serious weaknesses, but we're going to have to rally around whoever and do the best we can. I don't think it's going to be a cakewalk, and I think we would have done much better to have nominated someone with experience like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson, or a populist like John Edwards, but we were hellbent on being "historic" this year, so it is what it is.

[Thrill]

129. Again the Campaign AGAINST McCain hasn't even started. Grandpa will not run strong

across this country. He has had a free ride for 4 months and still trails Obama

[MaineDem]

130. Primary does not equal General

Polls now don't count at all. And, as we saw in '04, polls don't count period.

I don't think we can look at primary results and extrapolate November performance. The entire Democratic GOTV effort will be behind one candidate.

[Youphemism]

131. If electability is such an overriding decisionmaking force...

...then why were a black man and a woman the overwhelming favorites to take the primary in the first place?

I'm always impressed by the negativity of these electability arguments. Taken to their logical conclusion, they suggest that we should only promote WASP males, and never hope for any real change.

Getting where you want to go means taking some chances. It's funny that someone running to become the first woman president would argue against taking a risk to elect the best president and favor settling for known historical precedents.

If we believed in doing that, no woman or black man would ever get elected. I think this election has already proved that people believe the message is more important than the messenger.

[silverweb]

132. Nope.

"I am just wondering if any Obama supporters were effected by last nights results in a similar manner?

Not in the least.

Obama is the stronger candidate by all measures.

Obama will be our nominee.

Barack Obama will be our next President.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

133. Only in former slave states with negligible current-day Black populations. In other

words, ONLY IN WEST VIRGINIA!

[yellowcanine]

135. I suspect it is only Clinton supporters making this stale argument. Give it up already.

[Seabiscuit]

136. It certainly wasn't a good sign for Obama's hopes in the GE. What if many of those

democratic voters in WV, OH, PA, TN etc. decide that they just don't want to vote for Obama and stay home or vote democratic along the ticket except for president? The general election is the endgame and it should be our goal to win in November with the best candidate. Obama will have to work hard to get those votes from the states mentioned to win in November. This vote in WV should make any democrat nervous.

[FrenchieCat]

137. Eat it!

and see what this WV SD has to say about all of that......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Tim9h94YM&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=132078&mesg_id=132078

[haymakeragain]

138. Dream on. Hillarious is finished, only she and a few here won't push the

reality button and get clued in. No matter. In my opinion she is only continuing to pay off her campaign's debt to ....... herself. Maybe she can raise a few mil and cut her losses by June 3.

[tblue37]

140. Most of the people who voted for Hillary are Democrats, so in a match up

between Obama and McCain, most of them will vote for Obama, not MCain. They may prefer Hillary to Obama, but most will still prefer Obama to McCain.

Similarly, I caucused for Obama here in Kansas, where Hillary lost by 2:1 but that doesn't mean that I would stay home or not vote for Hillary if she were the nominee, because I certainly would vote for her!

Comparing primary results to GE results is a logical fallacy. He didn't lose to McCain in those states--he lost to Hillary in those states. Not the same thing.

Here are the Kansas caucus results reported in our local paper:

73.3% Obama 27,172 votes / 23 delegates

25.3% Clinton 9,402 votes / 9 delegates

0.1% Edwards 53 votes

0.1% Kucinich 35 votes

0% Richardson 1 vote

[quiet.american]

142. Problem is, I'm not convinced Clinton would do any better in the GE either. nt

[NeedleCast]

143. It's not a serious problem

I'll concede that it's unlikely that Obama will win West Virginia. However, I refuse to be held hostage by that state and it's fear of black people (yes, I'm generalizing).

Obama has not campaigned in Florida yet and I think he has a very strong chance to win it. The majority of Hillary supporters there are senior citizens and most of them will vote along their normal party line, be it Democratic or Republican. I think most Hillary supporters in Florida will vote for Obama. The large number of big colleges there will help Obama as well. Obama can win some southern states while I believe Hillary would only win Arkansas.

I'm not effected by last nights results very much. Obama has won the primary, so I'm pretty much focused on the general at this point.

[VotesForWomen]

149. i'm getting a little nervous too, because if he loses big, it could really hurt dems for years to co

come.

[bvar22]

152. You're working hard to plant the meme.....

...Obama---serious problem---weakness.

That is exactly how the NeoCons connected Saddam with Al-Qaeda.
Keep repeating it in the same sentence over and over and over until the association is formed uncousciously.

There are other ways to frame your question.
Why use this one?

[Usrename]

153. Hillary was a strong candidate and Obama is even stronger.

No worries against McCain.

[Carrieyazel]

161. No, they're both weak candidates with major vulnerabilities in a general

First thing is that they're trying to do something that has never been done. They're candidates who can be easily defined on their voting records, and they're both predictable.

[mdmc]

156. nah. we should blow out the GOP in 2008

If the votes count.

If we lose, the party needs to dissolve.

[BigBearJohn]

158. what difference does it make? at least you can say you won the nomination!

[Robeson]

162. It's over Texas Hill Country, go easy man.

[graycem]

163. Well,

there's a problem with equating a Democratic primary with a Republican v. Democrat GE. Yes I know this feels like a GE, but we all know that many Democrats will vote for him, they don't hate him, they just liked Hillary more. Maybe not a plurality in WV, but they are NOT representative of most states. Anyone can take that however they like, but we all knew it before it ever needed to be said. It doesn't bother me, because I firmly believe that there are more open-minded people, who are in desperate need for change in this country because of $4 gas, food prices, job loss, and this idiotic war. That same 21% will probably rethink some of their ideas when they see he isn't all that different than they are, and come out to vote for him in the election for his second term. :)

[Egnever]

164. Not even a little and heres why

Cause your fears asume that hillary is not an atractive candidate and there will be no states that fit her demographic better than obamas. You also assume those votes are lost to Obama when the majority of them are easily his when Hillary leaves the race.

Clearly hillarry attracts some people that have a disdain for obama but they dont approach anything near the number needed for mcsame to pull this thing off.

The media is feeding you a bunch of crap with this stuff. Even with the huge blowout by hillary he still got more votes than mcsame did in the WV puke primary. I guess mcsame has a problem with working whites too.