« " Hardworking Americans, white Americans" vs. Lazy Blacks? | Stuart Vyse's Blog | Why is Bush Working So Hard for McCain? »
Upcoming Losses in West Virginia and Kentucky
It is unfortunate that the presumptive Democratic nominee will have to endure big losses in West Virginia and Kentucky before sealing the deal. A quick look at the electoral map for the 2000 and 2004 election shows that both these states went Republican in Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry. We cannot give up on any states come November, but it will be a shame if Hillary tries to suggest these wins are truly meaningful.
This is a delicate time for both Democrats--the presumptive nominee and the proud loser--and it will be interesting to see how Hillary handles the next two weeks.
This is a delicate time for both Democrats--the presumptive nominee and the proud loser--and it will be interesting to see how Hillary handles the next two weeks.
Advertisement
It's Hillary Clinton's word trap that the MSM seem to completely fall for every time.
She says the goal is no longer 2025, it's 2209 and the MSM reports it like it means something. Only the DNC can change the goalpost.
She says that Barack has a problem with white voters and the MSM compounds her statement without even examining her weakness with black voters or Barack's success in EXTREMELY white states.
She says she's winning now and the MSM says that she still has a chance without talking about the 30+ states that she's already lost.
The MSM are lazy! It's easier to relay what someone else said than to actually do journalism and get to the truth of the matter.
May 12, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to discount two "red" states, when Obama doesn't win could be construed as sort of a "Catch-22".
May 12, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary now needs West Virginia and Kentucky to score a political point. But up until last week, they were right at the top of her list of the very kind of states that she has belittled Obama for winning -- states that, because they have tilted Republican in the last several presidential elections, could be seen as a challenge for a Democrat -- states that she has argued -- strenuously -- won't matter in the general.
For Hillary to strut around on these two wins will be the height of irony and rank hypocrisy.
The fact is, Obama is more likely to repeat his "red" victories in the general than Hillary is to repeat hers -- including West Virginia and Kentucky -- not least, because he won the first time by campaigning as a Democrat, while she will have won by campaigning as a de facto Republican.
May 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. I've always considered WV as being mostly "blue". Both Senators, their House Rep, Governor and I believe most of the State House are Dems, plus they went for Bill Clinton at least the first time around.
If you ask me, they started veering right on the Presidential question based on "values" and then Gore's environmental platform wasn't what they wanted to hear. Of course, if we really wanted to have a shot at carrying WV, we'd need to pander by offering them jobs. A whole lot of Federal jobs have moved into the state and if nothing else, they may be persuadable based on pocketbook issues, something McCain isn't likely to do, but "identity politics" and "values" could theoretically work against us. Though, of course, we really won't have a shot if the nominee decides to keep ignoring them, but otherwise, I think they might possibly go into play.
KY is another story, especially if the nominee is Obama, but that's as much to do with history and demographics, more than anything else.
May 12, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simply point out to persons who make that claim with regard to WV and KY that in both 2000 and 2004 -- each time with a "southern white man" on the ticket with another "white man", the Democrats lost.
Obama doesn't have a problem with "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." His support is not "weakening again. That is a problem that all Democrats -- white and black and Asian and Hispanic and Native American, young and old, rich and poor, happy and bitter, clingy and non-clingy, educated or uneducated, male or female, gay or straight, or whatever other way you want to carve up the electorate -- need to coalesce to solve the problem.
Come the fall, these people wouldn't vote Hillary either.
May 12, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dont understand why people are comparing the general and a dem primary when you know the republicans are trying to create havock where allowed?
I know thats elementary, but still?
May 12, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is unfortunate that the presumptive Democratic nominee will have to endure big losses in West Virginia and Kentucky...
It will be good practice for November for him. No Alan Keyes this time...
May 12, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that it matters, really, in regards to the nomination. But, it does provide important information in regards to the General Election. I would have liked to have seen Obama invested in more focused campaigning in these two States these last two weeks.
May 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for the phony '50 state strategy'...
May 12, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink