The "no Democrat has won the WH since 1916 w/o WVA argument" is nonsensical

[onenote]

I posted these thoughts in another thread, but decided they deserved a thread of their own:

One of the arguments that is tossed around by those questioning Obama's "electability" is that he lost the W VA primary and that no Democrat has been elected president without winning W.VA since 1916. Now, the inherent assumptions behind this argument are that HRC will win W.VA in the GE, but Obama can't. The problem with those assumptions, of course, is that no one can predict the outcome of the GE at this point -- there is much that hasn't happened that can and almost certainly will impact the outcome, including the selection of running mates, the debates, and the unpredictability of future events in the world.

However, leaving all of that aside, the argument itself is simply nonsensical because comparing prior elections with the current one on the basis of one state is, in the most basic sense of the term, illogical. Relying on how Democrats have done in the past in W.Va as some sort of predictor of the outcome of the 2008 GE is about as meaningful as those comparisons you sometimes hear about some college team not having beaten some other college team in 40 years. Guess what? The folks playing today aren't the same as the folks playing 40 years ago.

Take a look at the electoral college map for Jimmy Carter. He lost California. Do you think a Democrat today stands a snowball's chance in hell in winning the GE w/o California? If Carter had won California, he could've lost West Virginia, Pennsylvania AND Ohio and still have easily won the election. Of course, Carter swept the entire south and even won Texas.


West Virginia has no special magic. Stevenson won it it 1952 and was creamed overall by Ike. Humphrey won it in 1968, but lost to Nixon. In 1968, Humphrey lost Calfironia -- if he had won it the election would've been thrown into the House of Representatives (which the Democrats controlled) regardless of the outcome in W.Va.

And if Clinton hadn't won W.VA in 1992 would he have lost the election? Of course not.

So spare me the arguments based on a single state's history. They're totally bogus.

[Zynx]

1. One correction, Gore lost West Virginia.

Also, West Virginia and New Mexico have identical electoral vote totals.

[Joe Bacon]

2. Gore lost West Virginia in 2000

It was one of the most reliable Democratic states, even backing Carter and Dukakis. Not anymore :-(

BTW--Wilson didn't carry West Virginia in 1916.

People need to stop emulating Kevin James and actually do some digging on the Internet!

[onenote]

4. thanks for the corrections. I've edited the post. The point remains the same

And I don't think anyone has been claiming that Wilson carried WVa; rather, the argument is that 1916 was the last time a Democrat won the presidency without winning W Va. Of course, Democrats have won W.Va and lost the presidency numerous times since then and they also have won the white house by margins that made a victory in W.Va irrelevant on numerous other occasions.

The meme that Democrats "must" win W Va in order to win the GE is simply a fiction.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. Yep. It's true until it's not.

You can look at all the historical statistics you want, but they only hold true until they don't. They have no predictive power whatsoever.

[doc03]

5. Registered Democrats in WV

outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. Jimmy Carter called himself a born again Christian and was the first candidate backed by the Fundies, that's why he carried some southern states and didn't need California. I remember that was the first time my Union the USWA never supported a Democrat because Georgia was a Right-to-Work state. Then in 1980 the Fundies switched Republican to support Reagan and have stayed there since.