I will admit it Obama FAILED in Kentucky

[Zachstar]

I am quite disappointed that Obama decided to ignore Kentucky. And he is paying dearly for it...

WTF he goes and has 75k rallies and then does little in Kentucky?

[Joe the Revelator]

1. Obama is focused on the GE. He doesn't need to compete for solid red states

[dsc]

3. Kentucky was won by us in 1976, 1992, and 1996

just like an awful lot of other states.

[redstate_democrat]

12. Clinton also won Georgia in 1992 and Barack has a great chance of winning that November

BUT, leave it to Clinton supporters to wipe that off the map as if it doesn't matter because it went red for Bush. How hard did Clinton campaign in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi,Virginia?

[dsc]

59. Can you please point out one place

just one where I typed anything like you are implying I did? I will say we have no shot at Georgia this time unless we win in a total landslide which I don't anticipate.

[yourguide]

108. So why is there a shot in Kentucky but not a shot in Georgia?

Your math I see.

[Blarch]

23. 92 and 96 because ...

Ross Perot split the republican vote.

Kentucky is red ...all the way.

[Melinda]

45. And because Carter and Clinton are "good ole boys" aka "Southern Gents.

Obama is from Northern Illinois afterall. ;)

[Life Long Dem]

74. What are there, like 8 electoral votes? n/t

[dsc]

76. tell that to Al Gore

those 8 votes would have made a pretty big difference to him.

[Life Long Dem]

81. And everyone else that lost by 8

[writes3000]

Exactly. He is now running a GE campaign.

He's setting the terms. That's why Hillary is following him to Florida. She needs his spotlight.

[Marie26]

54. WV isn't a solid red state.

He needs to win over Appalachian voters for the general election. Right now, they're feeling dissed & even more likely to switch to McCain.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. They're feeling dissed because their opinion that a black man should not be prez is being ignored

By "n----- loving elitists" in other parts of the country.

Appalachian voters who care about the plight of their fellow man already oppose Bush and his policies.

The ones who hated Hillary until 6 months ago, threw things at the screen when she spoke, etc. regard Obama as the only thing worse: an outspoken black man born overseas... they will kill to prevent him OR Hillary from becoming President, yet they still vote in the primaries because they are Baptist, Segregationist Dixiecrats.

[mopinko]

103. born overseas?

the state of hawaii counts as overseas?

[Hola]

110. Yes, obviously, it is not part of the mainland. n/t.

[mopinko]

112. and what does that make alaska?

would they vote for someone from alaska?
that is just plain ignorant.

[Marie26]

107. Maybe

I'm sure there's a hard-core percent of racists who would never vote for Obama, but that's present everywhere. But IMO that's not the reason why many people voted for Clinton & it's sort of stereotyping to say that every voter in KY, PA, WV, OH, who voted for Clinton is a racist redneck. Especially in Appalachia, people have a lot of goodwill for the Clintons, because the Clintons came there often & life improved overall during Bill Clinton's presidency. They're familiar, a known entity. Obama isn't familiar, so is mistrusted. The best way to overcome that is for Obama to just campaign there, introduce himself, prove he's not the evil radical bogeyman that talk radio is claiming. I'm sure there's some that could never be convinced, but there's many that COULD. And IMO it'd be worth making the effort in order to help keep these states in the Dem column for the general election. If Obama's campaign is all about creating "unity", that should extend to Appalachian Democrats as well as Republicans.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. You have no clue about the 50 state strategy.

However, after the returns in KY and WVa, I think it's really about Obama's health. If Obama had gone into some of these counties where he got 3% of the vote, he might have been shot. These are "sundown towns."

[PoliticalAmazon]

118. Stephanie Miller caller made a point today....

She said that there was quite a bit of bigot-pandering priorto WVa and KY, and racism was fired up. It was clear that Obama didn't need to win either state, and that he would not. This is the comment that stood out to me: "Should he go to a KKK meeting if he doesn't have to?"

I've thought about that all day, and I'm still conflicted about it.

[PM7nj]

2. It doesn't really make much of a difference. nt

[Zachstar]

10. In the end no but it is giving the Clinton Campaign a small gain and raising questions.

I mean look there are counties in Kentucky where he is close but no cigar in.

Why could he not spend 3-4 days there and try to win over these counties?

[Joe the Revelator]

What questions does it raise? Did anyone ever think he was going to win KY?

[writes3000]

27. That's bad advice...

Obama has moved on to the GE. That has been the talking point from the press for DAYS. If Obama was suddenly campaigning hard in WV, it would validate all of the Clinton camp's claims that the race isn't over.

Obama will have less than 24 hours of press on KY.

He'll trade that for the week plus of GE talk he's gotten.

And he's right.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. Oregon is a far more important state in the GE than Kentucky.

Can a Democrat win Kentucky? Yeah, but it'll be an uphill battle. Can a Democrat lose Oregon? Yeah, which is why we can't afford that. It's far better to keep a safe state than to lose a safe state and try and hope to win a right-leaning one.

[deadmessengers]

5. Paying dearly why?

What effect do you expect that his non-campaign there will have on the outcome of the primaries or general election?

[NightWatcher]

6. no, the ignorant old poor white people in Kentucky failed US

I know everyone there is not old, white, or racist, but according to the exit polls those are the ones voting for Hillary

The good thing about old racists is they are dying of old age every day

[woolldog]

19. exactly. he never had a chance in KY

just like he doesn't have a chance in Oklahoma, WV, Tennessee etc. Too much racism. He'll have to compensate for it in other ways.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. according to the exit polls in Kentucky

she's winning among many groups.

She won every age group, every income group, every education level.

[DerekJ]

I never take the primaries as an indication for the GE. However the demographics are republican

demographics totally.
Obama won something like 10 or 12 states with over 20 and 30 points.

[LisaM]

32. The economy is a big issue in Kentucky. I just read that in Oregon fewer than half

of the voters listed it as a number one priority this election.

Unfortunately, in terms of the GE, the economy is going to continue to slide and it will be an even bigger issue than it is now. For example, Michigan was in a one-state recession for a time. I was sorely disappointed that the DNC didn't see fit to move Michigan up in the primaries because I KNEW that the recession that started there would eventually bleed over to the rest of the country.

West Virginia - same thing. These people are hard up. They are voting for the person (at least IMO) who they think is strongest on economic issues. That's why Edwards still had a few diehards voting for him in WV. They were making a point.

The economy is likely to be a bigger issue in Oregon in November than it is now, and if Obama is the nominee, you'd better hope he hones his message on the subject and whacks McCain with it.

[woolldog]

37. Since when are KY and WV representative of anything?

[LisaM]

47. That's really not a very nice comment. For that matter, what does Oregon represent?

For a lot of people in Seattle, Oregon means the anarchist group from Eugene that came up and wreaked havoc during WTO in 1999. For others, it's the latte-sipping, Birkenstock-wearing stereotype.

I have relatives in Kentucky, and I also think the West Virginia (in fact both states) are two of the most beautiful places I've ever been in.

Sometimes people forget that we are all in the same country. Every state has value (well, except maybe Texas).



JUST KIDDING ABOUT TEXAS, BTW.

[woolldog]

50. Well people are acting like white people in KY and WV are representative

and white people in Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia etc don't count or aren't working class white voters.

The cherrypicking is absurd. And I'm sick of people blowing up the importance of these two states like the people there are more authentic than voters in other states like CA, CT, NY etc.

Plus KY and WV have some serious racial baggage.

[LisaM]

51. Oregon has some baggage too.

I'm not picking on Oregon - I like it there - but outside of Portland and Eugene (and maybe Ashland) you run into some pockets of weirdos. Do you remember those gay women killed just outside of Ashland a few years back?

[woolldog]

63. the difference is that those weirdo/racist/sickos

in Oregon are republicans. In WV and KY and TN and OK a lot of them are Democrats, as we're finding out. :-(

[LisaM]

66. Actually I think in Oregon they are Libertarians

it's actually a state that's got a few places where you wouldn't want to get stranded (all states have those places of course).

I just don't think it's helpful to disregard whole states - especially where times are hard - and to be so dismissive of them.

[Arugula Latte]

91. That's what's been shocking to me. I thought all the racist fucknuts had turne Republican long ago.

Guess again... Some still vote "D" as long as "D" doesn't stand for Darkie, apparently. Makes me sick.

[ekwhite]

104. What is it with the latte sipping Birkenstock wearing crap?

You do NOT want to get me started about West Virginia and Kentucky. Half of the people in those states look like extras from Deliverance. I went for a job interview in Charleston WV once - that place seriously creeped me out.

[FrenchieCat]

7. He didn't feel like having to compete with Hillary talking about race and Color

throughout the state. There's been more than enough race talk to go around.

Better that those who want to simply vote Democrat.

I still can't think of what Hillary has actually done for these "white" folks in Kentucky, but then, neither do they.

[Doityourself]

8. there are more important states than KY...thems the facts

[Barack_America]

9. He didn't want to be seen giving a solid effort and still losing.

That's my guess.

[DerekJ]

11. Obama knows very well that KY and WV will never go to him in the GE. And relax we expected those

results.

[Zachstar]

16. We expected them but WE worked for better results and he diddnt.

People phonebanked and he spent time in upcoming states that have few delegates in comparison.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. Because he knew he had no chance of winning.

It sucks, yes, but it's reality. He has the nomination pretty much locked up now, so it's all about setting up for the general election and that requires going to states he has a far better shot of winning than Kentucky. Believe it or not, he has a shot in the Dakotas and Montana -- at least a better shot than he does in Kentucky.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. Clinton supporters worked for her in Illinois and she didn't spend time here either.

It's strategy.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. I worked my ass of for him in Tennessee and he never showed up their either

And frankly I didn't care. Obama is focusing on upcoming states because he can net more delegates out of them than he can out of Kentucky. That's how you win.

[juajen]

87. Sounds like SNL. NT

[Beregond2]

13. His campaign has been

so brilliant, I wouldn't presume to question why he does anything at this point. I'm just enjoying the ride.

[grantcart]

14. instead he was sewing up SD and MT and letting Hillary have her victories

there are simply some rural appalachian voters that are not going to vote for a black man why invest the time in a futile area?

[ingac70]

15. He didn't need to waste another dime on Hill....

He had to ignore her and start acting like the nominee. Makes no matter, its really been over since Wisconsin.

[SoonerPride]

17. You can't fail if you don't try.

He conceded this state on purpose.

[last1standing]

18. Have you thought that perhaps local Dems didn't want him to come?

I know Kentucky and it is not going to vote for Obama in the fall. It's quite possible that downticket Democrats don't want to be tied too closely to him and face a repub onslaught.

[Hamlette]

21. he's running on MY money and he's right not to waste it on KY or WV n/t

[EmeraldCityGrl]

22. As a Democratic candidate which would you rather win, Oregon or Kentucky?

She must be sooo proud.

[gateley]

25. I would have liked to have seen him spend more time there -

But he seems to be doing okay without my input. :7

[TheFarseer]

26. I understand his strategy

Stop all the talk about race and stop any talk of using Kentucky as a springboard for Hillary to get back into the race. Obama is going to concentrate on western states and a few states like Virginia and North Carolina. He's just plain not going to win Kentucky or West Virginia in the GE and they're relatively small states anyway so why pour money into a losing cause?

[Meshuga]

28. I thought Hillary was supposed to have a 30 point lead in Kentucky

He is not doing as bad as I thought he would. Congrats to Clinton, btw.

[pkz]

29. Seriously...maybe he couldn't

the Secret Service may not have allowed it, seriously.

Tweety made some vague comment the other night about the SS doing a great job, that there have been some serious threats.

I remember when Bill was running for re-election and they had school buses all behind him to protect him in WV. The local news said there was some kind of threat to him.
KY and WV are different worlds and IMO a security risk, for no particular reason other than everyone and their kids are armed.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

35. Spending time in Montana is going to prove to have been much more productive n/t

[woolldog]

93. this has crossed my mind as well.

[AlinPA]

30. There are certain states that will vote in the GE based on skin color. WVA, KY for sure. So

he should campaign in states where he has a chance.

[IndyOp]

31. Clinton has a 14% lead with 36% of precincts reporting and you're panicking?

It is expected that Obama will lose Kentucky by 30% -- he decided to focus on increasing the size of the win in Oregon -- that may not be the strategy you would prefer, but it is a reasonable strategy and he isn't "paying dearly for it" -- unless he winds up with a much, much worse performance in Oregon than expected.

Right now Obama has 195 more total delegates that Clinton -- before any KY or OR delegates have been assigned. If he has only 180 more delegates than Clinton tomorrow morning then maybe I'll see this as some kind of failure.

Total Delegates
Obama 1918
Clinton 1723
Difference + 195 (Obama)

Obama needs only 15.5 more pledged delegates to have earned a majority of all of the pledged delegates available -- he will get that number tonight whether it is Kentucky alone or whether it is Kentucky + Oregon.

I think he will have succeeded if he can get 16 or more delegates from Kentucky.

Peace.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

33. He has limited resources and he needs to use those resources effectively.

It's strategy. You use your resources to your best advantage. He was never ever going to win Kentucky. It makes no sense for him to blow money and time there when he could be spending it on a state he could win. Neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned in Illinois. I'm not shocked. It was good strategy.

[NashVegas]

34. Would It Have Killed Him to Come Down and Tour Some Bourbon Distilleries?

[cbayer]

38. I agree.

There was a great thread up earlier about the importance of really trying to connect with the rural vote, no matter what state they live in. I think he is making a strategic error by ignoring these two states. They are the ones that really need to see him in person, to shake his hand, to hear him speak. They need to know that he recognizes them. The rally in Oregon was huge, but it was not who he needed to be talking to, IMO.

[L0oniX]

39. Actually it wasn't him who failed ...it was the bigoted racist low intelligence voters.

[Zachstar]

83. Great way to win states in the GE eh? Insults?

[New Dawn]

40. He didn't fail, he is actually doing better than expected.

Without even campaigning there!

[writes3000]

46. The Clinton peeps wanted him to fight her on HER terms.

"Hard working white people won't vote for him!"

If he validated that bullshit, it would have dominated the press for the last week.

Obama moved on. She wanted to stew in race-baiting campaigning. She did it alone.

[Zachstar]

53. 34%?

[casus belli]

65. You didn't see the Indiana primary in real trime did you?

He was down at least this much at one point in IN and then made a good deal of it up as the counting progressed. he won't make up that much here, but like the Indiana/North Carolina primaries, he focused on the bigger apple which will make up for the loss in KY and then some.

[Raine]

41. I agree

I wish he had gone there, he could've began laying the ground work for the GE. :-(

[ecdab]

42. In GE polling Hillary is down by 20 to McCain in KY and Obama is down

by 24. They both do better in Alabama than in KY. UT, OK, and WY are the only places where both candidates do worse than KY.

Obama is in GE mode, and KY is one of the few places that he will concede to McCain - so why waste money there to defeat Hillary - she has already been beaten. The money can be better spent in other places.

I'm disappointed that the people of Kentucky are clinging to the failed Republican party - but they are.

[NeedleCast]

43. Tropics_Dude Account 4?

[high density]

48. lol

You might be on to something there. :)

[Zachstar]

52. Ya thats right. I started an account years ago to switch this year.

PLEASE research before you speak.

[KAZ]

55. Zach, tensions are high. For no good reason.

[NeedleCast]

69. Okay, You do the Same

And recognize that this race is over. Kentucky wasn't a failure for Obama and more than WV was. Neither of those states is going to be blue in the General. Obama is focused right where he should be...on the General election.

[quantass]

44. Another thing to remember...Obama has like "5 months" to clean-house in Kentucky/WVa before GE

[rocktivity]

49. Failed? He he needs only 29% of the vote to clinch!

Hillary needs 86% of the vote--in BOTH contests tonight--to stop him.

Anything he gets over 30% of the vote is a success for him.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Marie26]

56. Why didn't he?

I don't understand. Oregon was an automatic win for Obama, he's got tons of money, he's practically the Dem nominee. Why not spend a day introducing himself to KY voters?

[Zachstar]

62. Bingo!

And he is spending time in upcoming states that are likely easy wins with PLENTY of time to campaign and Clinton works her heart out in Kentucky. It makes Obama looks like he will only campaign in sure win states in the GE.

Because of this I think he ruined his chance for the supers to come out in force tomorrow and now this will likely go on until atleast the 3rd.

[Marie26]

109. Probably

The lop-sided victory helps create more doubts about Obama's candidacy, even though he's going to be the nominee. It also undermines two of Obama's key themes - the "50 state" strategy, and unity of all Americans. Also, it could help reinforce the impression of elitism, because it seems like the campaign is writing off poor Appalachian states. Meanwhile Hillary is campaigning there like a Mother Jones advocate for miners & the poor. He's potentially alienated many voters who could have been won over for the primary or general election. There's a lot of negative consequences, & not many positive ones that I can see. Maybe just not losing face by losing a state he campaigned in. It just seems like this could hurt him in the general election, & I really want Obama to beat McCain in these states. IMO it definitely could be done.

[otohara]

57. Waste Of Money

that's why he's not in debt.

KY, WV hopeless in November

[Bake]

98. What? I thought Obama had unlimited money?

All the Obama people here keep contributing every day, don't they?

Bake

[otohara]

115. Maybe, But

that's not the point - why would you spend money in a state that thinks "you're too black" to be president.

[casus belli]

58. It would have been a waste of money

For what purpose? To maybe minimize the loss by 5-10 delegates? Not worth it...Oregon will make up for the loss and then some.

[Arugula Latte]

60. Kentucky is hopeless. He could have knocked himself out for a few percentage points.

Wouldn't have been worth it. Did you see that CNN report on rural Kentucky? That is the mentality he's up against ... Yikes. :scared:

We don't need Kentucky in the fall ... They can keep voting for Repukes who will only make their lives more miserable.

[Honeycombe8]

61. Strategy. No time. He wasn't going to win it, anyway, so he concentrated on OR (more delegates).

OR has more delegates, and that's where he is favored, so apparently strategically his camp thought his time was best spent ensuring he got as many of those delegates as possible. After all, the most he could hope for in KY was to lessen the loss.

It's about delegates, so it looks like he chose the right path, if he ends up with more delegates than if he had lost more of OR but gotten a couple of percentage points out of KY.

[Zachstar]

67. Except that for days he spending time in the last 2 states.

States with just over 30 between the two of them with one a surefire win for Obama already.

All these little town hall meetings which could have done wonders in Kentucky he wasted on states WELL into the end.

And now he is down to 32% in Kentucky. Which is not just a blowout but a destruction.

[Honeycombe8]

68. As I said, it wouldn't have made MUCH difference in KY. They won't vote for a black man.

So he concentrated on getting the most % he can out of the states where they'd at least pay attention to him.

His strategy has been working for him so far, so I think he probably did the right thing. He was going to lose both appalachian states of WV and KY by a large margin. He could've gotten another delegate out of each one, I guess....but he got far more the last time by concentrating in the state where he'd get more delegates.

[EmilyAnne]

64. It seems that he just didn't want to tangle with Hillary Clinton there. She has had the state

all to herself and can go out on a positive note without any heated back and forth. I wish he had gone to Kentucky, but I know there is some strategy there. Maybe, knowing that he would lose there, he opted to not spend much time and money there. He let Clinton have it while he focuses on the GE. If he had campaigned hard there, the media and Clinton would be spinning it with, "why, after all that time and money, can he still not close the deal."

He can reach out to Kentucky and West Virginia as the Democratic nominee.

[ekwhite]

105. Bingo!

I believe not contesting WV and KY was as much about not antagonizing Senator Clinton as anything. He can afford to concede these states to her, as he has the nomination wrapped up. She gets a couple of big wins in small states so that she can go out on a high note. He doesn't waste money that can be better spent against McCain.

[Occam Bandage]

70. Obama is focusing on GE states, not locked-in red states with racist voters.

[AZ Criminal JD]

75. Like Mississippi and Alabama? Just to name two of many.

[Occam Bandage]

79. ...what? Relevance, please?

[AZ Criminal JD]

84. Obama campaigned in states he can't possibly win.

So if those votes count for him then votes in WV and KY count for Clinton. Clinton has won most of the swing general election states.

[malik flavors]

71. Looks like she might net 200,000 PV out of Kentucky. Obama should have competed in KY and WV.

[Zachstar]

77. That is a big point.

Obama is NOT going to Net half that many in Oregon.

She has gotten a BIG boost out of this and she seems to indicate that she is NOT going to exit June 3


Nice Job Obama! Idiot!

[Occam Bandage]

80. Pop. vote is meaningless. Besides, he couldn't win there. They admit they won't vote for blacks.

[Stinky The Clown]

72. I agree with you

Even if he couldn't win, it should not have been conceded to Clinton for the crowing rights.

Plus, Dems have won Kentucky in the not too distant past. The Dawg won it.

[tularetom]

73. Clinton wouldn't carry KY in a general election

Regardless of how many phony hillbilly accents she adopted and how many lies about hunting she told.

The republicans would destroy her and neither she nor bill have the courage to stand up to them.

[Marie26]

78. Bill Clinton did - twice. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

92. Bill Clinton barely eeked out victory in Kentucky likely due to Ross Perot

I'm not one of those people that believes Ross Perot gave Clinton the election. All of the polling indicates that he would have won a two person race. But Perot swung a few states into Clinton's favor and Kentucky was one of them.

[Marie26]

96. And in 1996? Clinton won then too

w/o Perot. Let's face it, Kentucky is a state that Democrats could & should win, especially now that the Republicans are so unpopular. Obama made a mistake by blowing it off IMO.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Perot ran in 1996 and the margin in Kentucky was even narrower that year

This site is a pretty good resource for these kind of things. http://www.presidentelect.org/

And Kentucky is a state that would go for Democrats if people voted in their own economic interests. But they don't and they haven't for quite some time now. It's not that Democrats are "elitist" or out of touch, it's that people in states like Kentucky won't vote for someone who is pro choice and pro gay rights and socially liberal on other issues. And it hasn't gotten better since Clinton ran in '96 it has gotten worse.

The fact is that when your party adopts socially progressive positions, you're going to lose the votes of people who aren't socially progressive, and that is mostly the "white working class".

[Marie26]

99. But they did

Perot was not a big factor in 96 - even if you added most of his votes to Dole, Clinton still would have won the state. Basically I'm saying that there seems to be this theme here that a Dem. can never win Kentucky, and that's just wrong. How can you say that "they won't vote for their own economic interests" (meaning Democrats), when they did twice? Whatever happened to Obama's 50-state strategy, the mantra of "unity" & reaching out to voters who were not favorable to his campaign? Kentucky is a swing state, just like West Virginia - they can go either Dem or Rep, and so IMO it'd be a good idea for the Dem. nominee to at least try to campaign there, especially since he's got the time & money to do so. By ignoring those states, he's basically alienating many voters & essentially conceding states that Democrats could definitely win in a general election.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. First of all, look at the website, Clinton beat Dole by less than 1 point in Kentucky in 1996

Clinton got 45.8% Dole got 44.9% and Perot got 8.7%. If you tip Perot's voters slightly in Dole's favor, he wins Kentucky. Not only that but Clinton was an incumbent President and it's a different ballgame when you have an incumbent.

And again a lot has changed since Clinton ran in 1996. Clinton didn't have to run post 9/11 which gave Republicans the "National Security" issue that they can appeal to middle America with. By that I mean, they can paint Democrats as "weak on security" if they don't support every single brain-dead right wing foreign policy initiative. And to be perfectly honest, Monica-gate didn't exactly help Democrats in middle America. Clinton's job approval was high but Bush's "restore honor and integrity" bullshit appealed to people who used to vote Democratic.

Additionally, gay rights wasn't as much of an issue in the 90's as it is now. Clinton ran ads on right wing radio touting how he passed DOMA. Obama is pledging to repeal DOMA. There weren't ballot initiatives in states to ban gay marriage like there are now.

The margins in 2000 and 2004 are a more realistic picture of the current political landscape that we have to work with now. Bush has been a disaster and that will help us in November. But we're simply not going to win states like Kentucky and West Virginia unless we run a candidate who gives speeches about protecting unborn children, preserving the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman, opposing affirmative action, and tossing lazy people off of welfare. That's how we win on the state level in these places because we run candidates that aren't socially progressive.

West Virginia, in particular, is going red because Republicans have been convincing people that national Democrats are fringe environmentalists that will destroy the coal industry and put them all out of work. I'm fine with running statewide candidates that pander to the coal industry's interests. But the environment and global warming are far more important than the survival coal industry in West Virginia and it needs to take precedence over winning West Virginia's electoral votes. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about the hard economic times that West Virginians are going through and take steps to try and improve them. But that's simply not going to win us enough votes to win in West Virginia, at least not this time around.

Meanwhile, if you look out west, we're running socially progressive candidates like Jon Tester and Brian Schweitzer and we're winning. Voters out west care about the environment and they are more libertarian on social issues. We are very much in a position to make massive gains among these voters in November. We're also making gains in Virginia due to the growing population of socially liberal voters in the suburbs.

You have to look at the way states are trending, not just how they voted when Bill Clinton was in office. It's not the 90's anymore and the political landscape is very different. West Virginia and Kentucky are not trending in our favor, at least on the national level.

[hokies4ever]

82. It's all about the superdelegates

Obama was wise to not campaign more in KY and spend his time right now elsewhere. First, do you really think that an extra 2 to 3 days of campaigning across the state would have swung it in his direction? Do you seriously believe that? Also, let's stop pretending that all of those undeclared superdelegates are undecided. For all we know, Obama might have another 50 endorsements to roll out, making this a moot point.

Now, for a more important point. The Obama campaign is in contact with those undecided superdelegates within the undeclared group of superdelegates. If 3/4s of them had told him that they needed to see him do better with the white, working class in Kentucky if he wanted their vote in the end, he would have been campaigning there non-stop this past week. Obviously that wasn't their message to him. His Edwards endorsement happened in Michigan. Sounds to me like those undecided supers are placing more importance on Michigan than Kentucky for Obama to secure their vote.

It's all about the superdelegates folks, plain and simple. So let's not chastise Obama for not spending more time in Kentucky. He's just following the hints given to him by the superdelegates.

[Condem]

85. Jesus, Zack

What was he to gain from these hillbillies. Follow the Appalachian Trail. No votes there. And, there never will be.

[goodgd_yall]

86. Not as bad as W. Virginia

He actually won 2 counties so far and possibly 1 more. WV was a total wash.

[Gore1FL]

88. KY puts him over half of the pledged delegates at it's current rate

That is as good as on could expect.

[ecstatic]

90. No. The people failed. Did you see the exit polls?

WTF

[Hippo_Tron]

94. The future isn't in Appalachian Mountains, it's in the Rocky Mountains and Virginia

The "white working class" has been gradually going to the Republican Party since 1968 because they don't like social progress. Whether it's civil rights, abortion, or gay rights they have some reason that they can no longer vote for Democrats. But fast growing middle class suburban counties that used to go to the Republicans and are now trending Democratic and are the future of the party, at least for the time being.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Dupe n/t

[zulchzulu]

106. Let's count our blessings that the rest of the US isn't like Kentucky

According to some exit poll on CNN, 21% thought race was an issue.

THAT"S FUCKING 1953!

4 in 10 are over 60 and 7 in 10 never went to college. We're talking old, racist dumb asses.

[RoadRage]

111. He couldn't change his skin color before their primary...

So frankly, why bother wasting money there? He decided to campaign in places where skin color isn't nearly as important - and where people tend to vote on things like ISSUES instead of Flag Pins, Reverends, and the color of a candidates skin.

Obama could have promised to hand out $100 bills to anyone who voted for him, and he still probably would have lost by 5 or 6 percent.

At the end of the day, he needs to focus on areas he wants to win in November. States where he has a good shot like FL, MI, IA, etc. KY won't vote for a black guy... no matter how great of a candidate he is. "Rural & Uneducated" seems to be code for can't see anything below skin deep. Sad - but true.

[SeaLyons]

113. Presumptive Nominee loses KY by 35%...

loses WV by 41%....something is wrong with this picture....

[SoonerPride]

116. Yep, it is. It's called racist hillbillies calling themselves Democrats.

Sorry, but thems the facts.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

114. I will admit that I failed in the Kentucky Derby...

But then again, I never entered the race. Just like Obama never contested the Kentucky Primary.

[Buzz Clik]

117. It would not have mattered. The demographics are completely wrong for him to do anything there.