Analysis: In West Virginia, Clinton crushes Obama across the board

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: Tue May 13, 2008
Analysis: Clinton crushes Obama across the board
By Alan Silverleib

....Clinton, as expected, trounced Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary. In the process, she underscored Obama's weakness with blue-collar, working-class white voters -- a segment of the electorate that may prove pivotal in November....

Clinton's victory in West Virginia was decisive. She won men and women. She carried a majority of voters in every age group. She captured liberals, moderates, and conservatives. She took a majority in every income bracket.

Clinton's largest margins, as expected, were registered among voters at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. Among white voters without a college degree, Clinton defeated Obama by 50 points. Among white voters making less than $30,000 a year, Clinton's margin of victory was more than 60 points. Older voters and white women -- part of Clinton's core constituency -- also rallied strongly to her beleaguered campaign. Voters age 65 and older supported her by a 38-point margin. White women backed her by 51 points.

Clinton's proposal to suspend the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax for the summer -- an idea belittled by most economists and rejected by Obama as a political gimmick -- proved to be a winner in West Virginia. Voters supported the gas tax suspension by an almost 2-to-1 margin. Those voters who supported suspending the gas tax broke for Clinton, 74 to 19 percent....

***

Over the past week, Clinton has highlighted the fact that white, working-class West Virginia was once a Democratic stronghold. In fact, no Democrat has captured the White House without West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson won a second term in 1916. President Bush was able to win the socially conservative state twice largely on the basis of hot button issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/west.virginia.analysis/index.html

[still_one]

1. Based on history we should not have won Congress in 2006, and JFK should not have been President

I suggest you learn to deal with the fact that Obama IS going to be the Democratic nominee

[splat]

2. I suggest you learn the danger of proclaiming "inevitability" -- Hillary did

[still_one]

5. Really, it is the so-called "experts" who are proclaiming without WV you can't win the GE

In fact, it was these same experts who told us that

Iraq had WNDs
There was a connection between Iraq and AQ
Oil would never go over 40 dollars a barrel
There is no inflation
The economy is doing fine

and a year ago these same experts were saying

Hillary would be the Democratic nominee

[DeepModem Mom]

7. You're speaking to the CNN analyst, not the poster. Here's my usual disclaimer --

I am a neutral poster of articles here, posting articles both positive and negative about both candidates, because I think it's valuable for both supporters and detractors of both candidates to know what's out there in the press. I almost always post articles without comment.

And, if you'll look down the list of posts in this forum, you'll see my posts, falling into those categories. If articles aren't equally divided between the two candidates any given day, that's a reflection of what I find in the press on that day.

That said, I am an Obama supporter, but admire and respect Senator Clinton.

[still_one]

9. I appologize. I screwed up, and should not have personally addressed my response

toward you directly, but rather the so-called analysts or experts who have been so wrong on this entire campaign

According to the analysts, mccain was not "suppossed" to be the republican nominee either

Appreciate your correction

[DeepModem Mom]

10. And I appreciate your response.

I assume responses are directed at the writer of a piece, but always like to make it clear. I apologize if I seemed snarky!

;-)

[still_one]

12. no need to appoligize to me, thanks for your clarification though /nt

[Shoelace]

15. are we forgetting Electoral votes? (the other "magic number")

so far, it looks like this:

Clinton: 280 electoral votes; McCain, 241

Obama: 237 electoral votes; McCain, 290

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May14.html

It’s almost mathematically impossible for Hillary to catch up to Obama in the race to get 2024 delegates, the “magic number” needed to seal the deal on the Democratic nomination.

But does it really matter?

Because there’s another “magic number” that no one’s been talking about, even though it’s the most important number in the elections. That number is 270, the number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency in the fall.
And the electoral math heavily favors Hillary.
http://www.elon.edu/pendulum/Story.aspx?id=572

[DeepModem Mom]

16. I don't discount your points, shoelace. Thanks for your analysis. nt

[Shoelace]

18. hmmm, my post was in answer to post #14, somehow it ended up here

my bad I guess. Keep up the good reporting Mom, we love ya!

[DeepModem Mom]

19. Funny! Keep up your good posting! nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. Someone should point out to Hillary that not every Dem who has won WV in the primary

Has gone on to win the general. Something she conveniently forgets when she touts that statistic.

[angstlessk]

4. too bad for Hillary the country ain't one gigantic Appalachian trail??

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. O.K., O.K., we get it! So she won the bigot vote in WV...

Yes, yes, we get it! He's "THE BLACK GUY" who can't win the "hard-working" white vote. Congratulations, Hillary!! Go ahead and bask in your Phyrrhic victory because it still doesn't change a darn thing!!

Analysis: W.Va. win won't help Clinton much
By BETH FOUHY Associated Press Writer
May 13th, 2008 | NEW YORK -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's shellacking of Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary Tuesday may burnish her image as a champion of the economically disadvantaged and bolster her determination to campaign through the final contests. But it does little to alter the unforgiving political landscape she faces.

The former first lady's lopsided victory in West Virginia had long been expected, given the demographic makeup of the state: It is 95 percent white, has no urban core and counts among its residents some of the poorest and least educated of any state. It also had just 28 delegates at stake.

Clinton has performed strongly among white working-class voters throughout the campaign in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, while Obama has struggled to adapt his message of hope and change to address the economic anxieties those voters face. That, in turn, has allowed the former first lady to openly question Obama's chances in a general election against Republican John McCain.

In her speech Tuesday night, Clinton was expected to make a direct pitch to superdelegates on the electability argument, hoping they would reconsider the two candidacies.

The Associated Press made its West Virginia call based on surveys of voters as they left the polls. Not surprisingly, even before voting was done, the Clinton campaign seized on the expected outcome there to suggest Obama is having trouble winning primaries in important swing states.

"Hillary has predicted victory against Sen. McCain in West Virginia based on the strength of her economic message," the campaign said in a memo to reporters. "Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy."

But none of that changes the central problem for Clinton: Since her loss in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana last Tuesday, the New York senator has been battling the growing realization that her once-formidable candidacy may have finally run out of steam.

Saddled with more than $20 million in debt and facing a near mathematical impossibility of catching Obama among pledged delegates and in the popular vote, Clinton has watched a steady stream of superdelegates migrate toward the Illinois senator despite his apparent problems winning key party constituencies.

Superdelegate Roy Romer, a former Colorado governor and Democratic National Committee chairman under President Clinton, announced his support for Obama on Tuesday.

While Romer acknowledged a "great personal friendship" with Hillary Clinton, he said he believed the time had come to move forward to the general election.

"As I watched the campaign unfold, I realized there was a different kind of winning possibility with Senator Obama," Romer said. "I became convinced Senator Obama is the most electable of the two."

Obama, flush with cash and running a robust campaign in the final primary states, has turned much of his focus to McCain and the general election contest. He was spending Tuesday night in Missouri, an important swing state, before flying to Michigan on Wednesday.

Clinton's advisers say she is well aware of the daunting task she faces but wants to carry on, believing she owes it to her supporters and to the voters eager to participate in the remaining contests.

Clinton is favored to win Kentucky's primary next Tuesday and Puerto Rico's on June 1. She also wants to see the stalemate over disputed results in Michigan and Florida resolved, hopefully at a meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee May 31.

Steve Grossman, a former DNC chairman who is supporting Clinton, says she has more than earned the right to continue her fight to the finish.

"Hillary, who is absolutely mindful of the daunting nature of the math, feels an obligation to her supporters and a belief that her voters have to be major participants in the fall campaign for a Democrat to win," Grossman said. "She's determined not to break faith with those voters — not just women, but a lot of them are. It's about fairness and respect for Hillary and her army of activists, fairness and respect for the voters who've yet to be counted."

———

EDITOR'S NOTE — Beth Fouhy covers presidential politics for The Associated Press.


Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Shoelace]

8. 90% of voters polled said "experience was the biggest factor"

and not race. Also, the economy was the major factor in terms of what they were looking for in a candidate. The "race" issue is one that Obama supporters continue to bring up whilst totally ignoring the sexist, ageist remarks tossed at Clinton like so many dead fish.

At this point, I'm still undecided. I like her health care plan far better, don't like Obama wanting to privatize Social Security, don't like that he voted for Cheney's energy bill but other than that, their voting record is about 95% the same.

Across the board, Obama supporters have done Obama far more damage than Rev. Wright or any other single factor. If he can manage to reign them in a bit, I might swing to his side but for now, it's wait and see.
Our Oregon primary is May 20th.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Obama would NOT privatize social security.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm

Why do yo like her health insurance plan? If it keeps the insurance companies as the foundation, it will do nothing to rein in costs. All it does is ensure bigger profits for the for-profit insurance industry. If you are going to socialize it to the extent of making it mandatory - regardless of the burden on the individuals and companies that will be paying the premiums - why not go all the way and make it a not-for-profit socialized system? Obama's plan does not make it mandatory, which means the insurance companies will actually have to compete for customers - thus bringing down costs - while the government subsidizes those who cannot afford insurance. IMO, both plans are inadequate, but his is the better, and easier to implement.

[Shoelace]

13. Clinton's plan would include more uninsured

according to several studies I've read. I think that it would be a miracle for either of them to get any sort of "universal health care" plan through with the power of HMOs, Big Pharm but one can hope that our sicko country will do something, anything to improve what we have now.

Without trying to copy/paste here, I'll just give you a link to an analysis of the differences between the two plans. It's complicated and in many respects, both of them are similar, the major difference being the "mandates" that Clinton supports. Apparently without these mandates, many more folks would not be covered. But read it yourself, see what you think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Also, thanks for correcting me on Obama's "privatization" of Social Security.
I was dead wrong on that issue!

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. IMO, Krugman's analysis is missing a couple points.

If insurance is mandated, then someone needs to track ALL citizens to be sure they are insured.

With mandated auto insurance there is an automatic tracking system - the driver's license. If someone has a driver's license it's easy to see to it they have insurance as well (though that hasn't really borne out in fact), and if they don't have a license they are irrelevant.

With mandated health insurance there is no automatic tracking system. With hundreds of different insurers in the private sector, not to mention the various government programs, there is no way to know who is insured with who until they actually walk into the emergency room. Just as it is today. So how do you track it? Create a new bureaucracy JUST to track who is insured with who? Garnish wages and apply the garnishment to whichever insurer they choose? What about the self employed? The unemployed? Where do you cut off? What businesses will be required to provide insurance for their workers and what ones won't? Will they be required to ensure workers' families as well?

This promises to be no less than a bureaucratic nightmare. All for the express purpose of keeping the private for-profit insurers in business.

Also, simply having insurance is no guarantee of anything. You do know how insurance companies stay in business? By taking in more in premiums than they pay out in compensation. Their entire raison de'tre is to NOT provide payment for healthcare. They are the health INSURANCE business, not the health CARE business. While there are @45 million people who are uninsured (not exactly true, because for many their income makes them qualify for government aid - medicare/medicaid) there are probably a hundred million who are under-insured. People who have insurance but because of high deductibles and low coverage still pay thousands of dollars out of pocket that they simply cannot afford - most people who declare bankruptcy because of healthcare costs actually ARE insured. As long as the private insurers are calling the shots, the rates will be too high and the coverage will be too low. That's how they make a profit. And even if government insurance is available, it is the pricing scales that the private insurers set that determine healthcare costs - witness the hospitals and doctors that have refused to take medicare patients because the government compensation did not cover their expenses.

As I said above, I think both plans are inadequate - but Obama's plan has the advantage of not establishing a huge new bureaucracy that will need to be paid for, which will become self-sustaining and protective of its own turf against a real single-payer not-for-profit system. Yes, Hillary's plan gives INSURANCE to more people, but Obama's plan gives better coverage to those who really need the insurance, and doesn't place mandates on those who opt out of it.

And people can legitimately opt out. Personal case in point - I was uninsured from the time I left home until well into my 30s, and I was healthy and never missed it. Whenever something came up, I dug into my pocket and paid. Today, I would never consider going without insurance - in fact, it keeps me anchored to a job I'm not happy with, which depresses me and makes me even more prone to illness. Insurance has become a club to wield over the workforce, at the same time that it has become an untenable burden for the employers.

Obama's plan, IMO, is a half-step toward real national single-payer healthcare. Hillary's is a step away from that. With either plan, tens of thousands, possibly millions will continue to slip through the cracks until we get our act together and implement a REAL not-for-profit healthcare system. Obama's plan simply presents fewer obstacles for the plan we will eventually get to.

IMO.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Right, because Clinton and her supporters have been so noble...

...honest, and fair-minded. :sarcasm:

The New Media (and Clinton) Story Line: Democrats Need to Worry about Obama
Submitted by dlindorff on Wed, 2008-05-14 15:29.

By Dave Lindorff

snip//

You read it here: Hillary Clinton clearly has no more chance to win West Virginia in a general election than does Barack Obama.

So let's move on to a more salient question: Does Obama's poor showing in West Virginia mean he is going to lose in other states where many of the voters are white, working class, and don't have high school diplomas or college degrees?

No. Of course not.

West Virginia is not just Michigan without car companies and pasties. It's Michigan without Motown and Rap music. It is, that is to say, an almost totally white, incredibly insular, racist state--the kind of place that if you're a black person traveling through on the Interstate, you'd best stick to the highway rest stops to get your coffee. It has plenty of fine people living inside its boundaries, but it also has people who'd be just as at home in rural Mississippi--except that then they'd have to live--god forbid!--in the vicinity of "colored people" (West Virginia is only 3% African-American--you can walk around even a city like Wheeling all day and not see one).

Certainly Obama will have his work cut out for him winning over working class Americans. Hillary Clinton and her seemingly pump-headed husband Bill (see my April 28 column Invasion of the Pumpheads) have been hard at work turning them against him for months now, and Republican John McCain, who knows a thing or two about how racist some voters can be (Bush's campaign during the 2000 South Carolina primary, successfully spread the vicious lie that McCain's adopted Indian daughter was the "love child" of an adulterous relationship with a mythical black woman) can be expected to pick up where she left off, probably courtesy of surrogates and 526 campaign groups.

But the reality is that most of the American white working class is not racist. In most states, whites and blacks work together every day, share lunch and after-work beers, and get along fine. Most working-class people know that their real political enemies are the bosses who keep cutting their real wages, shipping their jobs overseas, busting their unions and financing the politicians who help them screw average Americans.

All Obama has to do is make it clear, during the general election campaign, that he understands all this, and is really going to take their side, by restoring labor law to some kind of at least impartiality, so that unions can start to organize the vast unorganized workforce whose members overwhelmingly want a union. All he has to do is say that he will call a halt to unfair trade agreements that encourage American firms to move overseas and sell their crap back to the US instead of making it here. All he has to do is say that he will start taxing the rich again, and corporations, and cut the tax burden on working people.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33418

------------------

Five Myths About Obama's Support Debunked

Obama's Strong Position in the Race Ahead

Nationally, Obama is running stronger among Independent voters than any winning Presidential candidate since 1988 and is significantly outperforming Sen. Clinton among these voters as well in general election polling.

To understand a potential general election match-up between Obama and McCain, the only analysis and data that should be considered valid are the current head-to-head National polls rather than extrapolating irrelevant assumptions from exit poll data in Democratic primaries.

And, on the issue of Democratic unity in the Fall, analysts need only consider that in April of 1992, on a night when Bill Clinton won four primaries and was the presumptive nominee, 6 in 10 Democratic primary voters said they wanted another candidate in the race. Despite this, five months later, Democratic voters were unified behind Clinton and he won his first of two terms in office.


Debunking Five Myths About Obama's Support

MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.

FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain

- May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.

- Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).

- NOTE: In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of Democrats.


MYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:

FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.

- Obama holds a 51-42 lead among Independents in the Washington Post poll.

- NOTE: Clinton loses 46-49 to McCain among Independents.

- Not since 1988, when George Bush beat Michael Dukakis 57-43 among Independents, has a candidate won such a large margin among swing voters.

- In his two victories, Clinton only managed a 6-point margin over the Republican among independents in 1992 and an 8-point margin in 1996.

- Indeed, no Democrat has won a majority of Independent voters since exit polls were first conducted in 1976.


MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:

FACT: Obama's is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.

- LA Times (May 8) Obama 41 - McCain 45

- Wash Post (May 13): Obama 42 - McCain 51

- 2004 Exit polls: Kerry 41 - Bush 58

- 2000 Exit Polls: Gore 43 - Bush 54

- 1996 Exit polls: Clinton 43 - Dole 46

- 1992 Exit polls: Clinton 39 - Bush 41 - Perot 20


MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama's position among women:

FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.

- Wash Post (May 13): Obama 54 - McCain 40

- New York Times (May 3) Obama 47 - McCain 39

- NOTE: No Democratic candidate has won women by so large a margin since exit polling was first conducted in 1976. The closest any candidate has come was in 2000, when Al Gore won women 54-43 over George Bush


MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:

FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters

- In the recent LA Times poll, Obama wins every income group under $100,000.

- <$40K: Obama 43 McCain 35

- $40K-$59K Obama 43 McCain 40

- $60K-$100K Obama 51 McCain42

- $101K+ Obama 46 McCain 47


- According to the Washington Post/ABC poll released today, despite Sen. Clinton's insistence that she is stronger among white, working-class voters the data shows that Sen. Obama performs nearly as well as she does in the general election. Among white, non-college voters in this poll:

- Obama vs. McCain is 40-52
- Clinton vs. McCain is 44- 52