Hello, West Virginia: Hillary 55%, Obama 27%

A new Rasmussen poll out today on West Virginia, which has its primary on May 13.

Senator Hillary Clinton holds a huge lead over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia Presidential Primary. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Obama is supported by 27%. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 72% of West Virginia’s Primary Voters, Obama by 53%. By a 48% to 31% margin, the West Virginia voters believe Clinton will be the stronger general election candidate against John McCain.


Most of those polled believe Obama will win the nomination. But,

If Obama is nominated, just 42% of Clinton supporters say they are even somewhat likely to vote for him against McCain. Eighteen percent (18%) of Clinton voters say that they are Not Very Likely to vote for Obama and 35% say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Obama.

On the other hand, if Clinton is nominated, 57% of Obama voters are at least somewhat likely to vote for the former First Lady.

Shorter version: Hillary, not Obama, is the unity candidate in West Virginia -- and most likely to vote Democratic in November.

< McCain's Race Baiting Fundraising E-Mail | Obama Campaign Provides Photo of Rev. Wright Shaking Hands With Bill Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think that's alarming, (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    West Virginia probably has more blue-collar white Democrats than any state. I'm not looking to sandbag Obama, but the resistance to him seems to be growing.

    It's encouraging (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    to this Hillary supporter.

    Well, I also support Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:48 PM EST
    In that sense, it's encouraging. But I still expect Obama to be the nominee, and in that sense, I worry.

    Not good news (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:29 PM EST
    to this Clinton supporter.  I think there is no way the superdeez are not going to give the nom to Obama.  He can tank in the rest of the states, his poll numbers can go down, but if he's 1000 votes ahead and 10 delegates, he's got it.  I don't think they will intervene.

    "tanking" in the upcoming states (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:08:17 PM EST
    results in Clinton winning the popular vote, and yes she CAN catch him in pledged delegates if there is a true tanking.

    There is a big myth going around that she can't possibly catch up but yes she can with wins in the 60-40%+ range.


    65-35 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    Yes, she can catch him with 65-35 in the rest of the states.  I may have been hoping for it, I just didn't think it was likely.  I'm still waiting on polls, which may not really tell what is going to happen in the next vote.

    yea it's not likely (none / 0) (#66)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:41:51 PM EST
    I think the bottom for Obama is somewhere around 40% no matter what.  Unless there was a video of him applauding some of the Wright speeches or Eliot Spitzer caliber stuff.

    Most SD's are biding their time (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM EST
    I think they are more interested in winning back the White House and they will wait for all of these to unfold.  If Obama is severely wounded by the Wright Connection, I think they will give the nod to Clinton especially is she has the popular  votes without Michigan and  Florida.  Then these two states would be factored in also.

    Hillary will be the nominee if she wins PA, Indiana, WV, PR and does well in North Carolina.  Let's see what John Edwards has to say in the Jay Leno show.


    Intervene? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cymro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:32:58 PM EST
    I don't think they will intervene.

    Intervene? They are delegates and they have to vote, not intervene. They each get one vote, just like every other delegate, and casting that vote is not "intervening".

    Some superdelegates have announced their support for Obama or Clinton before the convention, and before the primary season is complete -- did you condemn them for "intervening"?

    Framing the superdelegates' role in this way reduces their role to wielding a rubber stamp. That is not what they are there for. If all they will ever do is rubber stamp the public vote, they serve no purpose.


    They intervene by declaring their (none / 0) (#32)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:36:31 PM EST

    No I don't (none / 0) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:36:37 PM EST
    mind them intervening.  There seems to be pressure for the superdeez to not think independently even though that was the intent when they were created.  My bias is, I support Clinton.  My instincts tell me, Obama won't win the GE.  I want the deez to intervene, I just believe there is a lot of surrogate/media pressure on them not to.

    Voting is NOT intervening (none / 0) (#44)
    by cymro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:07 PM EST
    Please stop characterizing the superdelegates' votes in that way, especially if you want them to cast their votes for Hillary. The idea that the superdelegates would somehow be "intervening" is pure spin from the Obama camp. Don't reinforce that spin by framing your argument as if "to intervene or not" is the right way to think about the role of a superdelegate.

    Superdelegates were created for situations like we have this year, and given voting powers that are equal to that of the publicly elected delegates. They are not lesser beings who are obliged to follow the public vote.


    We happen to agree (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM EST
    as to the function of the superdeez, that is they are to act independently.  If I want to use the word intervene, I will.  Intervene... the sds may intervene by overturning the will of the people, etc, etc, etc.  Disagree or agree, just don't tell me what words are appropriate for me to use.  I doubt that Obama supporters are skulking my posts for terminology.

    "Overturning the will of the people" ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:34:43 AM EST
     ... is another false framing of the role of superdelegates.

    Of course I can't control the words you use. But I do know that whenever we use terms like "intervene" and "overturning the will of the people" we are legitimizing concepts and ways of thinking that should be challenged.

    This may seem like "just words," but the words we use to describe a subject determine the way people view it. We have enough problems already with the media controlling public discourse by choosing the way subjects are discussed. We should not be helping them to frame important public discussions in ways that misrepresent the true issues at stake.


    Framing matters (none / 0) (#76)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:04:32 AM EST
    If we've learned anything from the Bush years, it's surely that the words we use to frame our arguments really, really matter.

    The word "intervene" tendentiously characterizes the role of the super-delegates, since they are not in any way "outside" a normal process in which they "intervene" in extra-ordinary circumstances; the concept has always been that they are to exercise their independent judgment. If not, then why have them?

    Anyhow, use the word if you want, nobody can stop you.


    Minus Michigan and Florida she will look weak (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:58:25 PM EST
    How do you think she will do from here on out in the rest of the primaries.  Even is she wins big she will probably be behind on delegates. At the end of the primaries will the Supers say yes Obama has the most delegates and a slight edge on PV but we are still going to give it to Hilary.  How possible is that scenario.  Don't get me wrong but the GOAL is to win the GE for the Democrats and sometimes you need to do the illogical thing if it shows that Obama although he might be ahead in July in pledge delegates and slight edge on PV but the polls would strongly show he cannot win the GE in July.

    I don't think anyone thinks (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:02:25 PM EST
    pledged delegates will be the deciding factor. Neither can get to the 2000+ number.

    The superdelegates will make the call, and they will consider 3 things:

    Who can best beat McCain in their judgment -- which will include who they think can win the big states

    The popular vote total (and they can consider FL and MI even if the DNC doesn't, they can make their own factors and judgments

    and the pledged delegate total


    thanks for saying that (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:05:26 PM EST
    neither candidate can win even if all the remaining super d's went one way or another at this point.

    What can happen is that enough super d's who now support Obama can do some back room talking and make it clear that if it goes to the floor, he doesn't have it.  Then, he'll have to take the VP slot or, worse (for O) wait until eight years have passed and then try again.


    Limited time offer (none / 0) (#43)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:52 PM EST
    According to Michelle.

    He won't run again.

    Buy now! This deal won't last!

    This kind of sales talk always ensures I won't buy.


    Sounds like a used car or carpet salesman ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by cymro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:55 PM EST
    ... not a someone who claims to be a statesman and the leader of a movement. Even Nixon ran again!

    So if he doesn't win he is going to take (none / 0) (#79)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    his ball and go home?? Oh yeah, that's the kind of maturity I want in a future President. This really turned me off..
    "We still remember what it's like to be normal,"
    Yeah, all the black people I know live in million dollar mansions and send their kids to private school.(snark)
    Eight years from now, we will have lost a little bit of touch with what ordinary families are going through,"
    And he is in touch now?? I don't think so.

    I have so many questions I want asked of Obama, not ones he will want to answer, though. One thing I want to know is whether he agrees with his Kenyan grandfather that his mother, a white woman, "sullied" the Obama blood by having Barack Obama. And I want to know how many low income black residents were screwed out of decent housing by his good friend Rezko. Oh, and about his math. How does serving in the Illinois state legislature equal serving in the US Senate? The Illinois Legislature meets from Jan. 3 to May each year. That's four months out of twelve. Four months isn't a year, no matter who is doing the counting. If he adds up the months and translates into years, it's not anywhere near 11 years in elected office. I think the actual work time should count, not the calendar year it was done in. If I got a resume from someone and it said they had "years" of job experience, and I find out that the job was for a few months out of each of those years, I would recalculate the experience to reflect the part time nature of the job. Claiming months of work as a year of work is not honest. But that's politics, right?

    And I want someone to ask Obama how he can "understand the rage" of the African-American voters when he has NO slaves in his family tree. No one in his family, including him, was held back by their race. He does not have the familial heritage of a typical black American. He doesn't have any ancestor who had to drink at colored fountains, who couldn't enter a restaurant because of his color, who had to sit at the back of the bus because of his color. That sort of familial history is what engenders the rage in African-Americans, not being raised by white women and being sired by a black visiting student and having access to all the advantages that a typical white kid has, if he is bright.

    My black friends don't see Obama as a black man, they see him as a Harvard suit with a tan. And my friends are mostly working poor, with a smattering of people who have clerking type jobs at the local universities. They don't like him much anymore. Once they got past the "preacher talk", as they call it, they saw that there wasn't much behind it. They have been fed hopes and dreams by preachers for years. They don't need anymore. They want someone who KNOWS what the problems are and will do what they can to fix them. One lady told me that she wants to hear what he has DONE, not Yes, we can. She wants to hear Yes, we DID. So far, Obama is coming up short. Hillary isn't. At least, not in North Central Florida.

    And as for not being the same people next time around, yeah, you would have experience.


    If the (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:16:27 PM EST
    Supers award to Obama, as of today, we will lose this election hands down.

    Got to survey usa and see that Obama loses Ohio, whereas Clinton wins.

    Also check out how he is now tied with McCain in MASSACHUSETTS (yes, you read that right) whereas she wins.

    See the PA numbers, the KY and WVa numbers.

    He now leads her by 1 point in NC , whereas it was 8 points a few days ago.  He is now down by 7 in the Gallup poll to her.

    She beats McCain by 2 , he loses by 1.

    This is not funny.  

    The Super D's have to pay attention to these numbers, if they keep up like this.


    Michigan and Florida will not hold it against her (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:26:05 PM EST
    that the DNC left them out.  She did not take her name out in Michigan and she certainly has enough base support in Florida which will go to her once the campaign for the GE begins with her as the nominee.

    as the race gets closer to Nov. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:02:29 PM EST
    I have faith that the voters will remember the Clinton years vs. what we have now and
    the choice of the other side will close the deal.
    My husband shocked me when he, a Republican, said he would write in Hillary's name if she didn't become the nominee. :+)). Whoa there!!

    She and Bill are hard working public servants. So is Obama I guess, but I have to go with the Clinton work ethic.There is too big a mess to clean up, but I think she can do it.

    The quintessential Appalachian state (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:14:15 PM EST
    This probably gives us a glimpse of what non-Pittsburgh SW PA looks like.

    Agree wholeheartedly. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:13 PM EST
    I'm from SW PA - part of the heart of coal/steel region, like alot parts of of W VA.  

    You couldn't find a more solidly Democratic region in the country than that area.  No way no how could a Republican be elected.  

    Big union country - hard workers in dangerous occupations and very ethnic - Poles, Ukranians, Czechs,  Italians, Irish, German, English etc.

    BUT not necessarily racist, altho I can't deny that some people were.

    Economic times are hard now - I believe they are voting their pocketbook.  


    Greene County didn't go for Kerry in '04 (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:50:27 PM EST
    That was really depressing. Made Bill DeWeese look not good.

    no matter how hard the party bosses try and the (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:16:59 PM EST
    GOP tries, it is obvious that most Democrats absolutely love the Clintons and refuse to be turned off...That is deep strength...I believe she would win in the general election...

    I am so proud of our girl! (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:19:15 PM EST
    She hung in there even when we were thinking we'd have to pack our bags and go back into the proverbial kitchen for another 200 years.  What amazing strength and depth of character.  What a woman!

    IMO after the Wright fiasco, the red states will (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:32 PM EST
    be but a memory for Obama...

    He can't even win MA, according to current (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:16 PM EST
    polling. He could win IL and DC in Nov. Anything else?

    I think it'll be sad (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by vj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:05 PM EST
    if the contests continue to be racially polarized.  That doesn't sound good for the party in November, whoever wins.  Seems like a joint ticket is the only reasonable solution.

    I support Democrats winning in November (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by downtownted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    And we should. We should sweep the elections boards from top to bottom. No matter which  becomes the standard bearer, supporters of the other will be able to proudly talk about the facts which demanded their candidate should have been the nominee. They will be able to do this with righteousness and clear conscience.

    The only question is which will win and add to a historic sweep handed to us because the Bungler has been such a terrible President. The Democrats had him in 2004 and let him off the hook with our candidate. Remember the guy who couldn't say a simple declarative sentence. That was our candidate. We nominated him. We had the opportunity to knock out an incompetent sitting President. But the Democrats nominated Kerry. We gave life to 4 more years with the Bungler.

    I am for any Democrat nominee who will win big in November. It is inconceivable a Democrat could lose. Look at the economy, Iraq, our poor, wonderful, overstretched military. But if we should put up a loser because of some form of institutional hubris, then we have to be ready to reap the whirlwind we have sown.

    Obama, Hillary or deadlocked campaign and a third choice. And a third choice is always a possibility when a candidate can't get the job done on the first ballot. Any one that wins in November. Any one that wins in November and ensures that big Democratic sweep. That is my candidate.

    the racial polarization is totally Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:41:35 PM EST
    pastor's fault....so their campaign has only themselves to blame...but I think it is more than racial...it is total hatred for all things white American...that is dangerous and bound to turn off most folks...IMHO

    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by ineedalife on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:48:17 AM EST
    the racial polarization was introduced by Obama's camp distorting everything that the Clintons said into racist remarks. There was already a backlash brewing and Wright was the galvanizing moment. Wright would have been a one day blip if Obama had ran a different type of campaign.

    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by lambert on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:09:35 AM EST
    See, as I tiresomely keep saying, Sean Wilenz. He lays out the time line and the players in excruciating detail. The race card was played by Obama. Live by the sword, perish by the sword.

    I don't blame it on Wright. Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:57:12 PM EST
    had a vast choice of church homes in the Chicago area.

    That's what I don't get. Obama has had (none / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:06:45 PM EST
    political aspirations for a long time. Why did he stay there knowing what could happen? Everything you are associated with can come back to haunt you. I don't like this but I also don't understand it.

    Other pastors (none / 0) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:12:55 PM EST
    at the time advised Obama that the pastor was controversial.  He must have been attracted to the church or pastor for some reason.

    Was it Michelle's family's (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:40 PM EST

    I have read that it was Michelle's church. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:29:09 PM EST
    Also wondering if the church is in (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    the IL Senate district Obama represented.

    Vey good news Obama is slowly going to (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DemBillC on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    sink loke a stone once people realize he sat there watching the Rev Wright spew his Racst Anti American spiel for 20 years and never objected. His remark today regarding a "typical white person" being racist was truly uncalled for and dissapointing. Obama really only talks well when it is scripted. I think Hillary can win 65% of the remaining votes. It will start in PA.

    interesting (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:17:48 PM EST
    Shorter version: Hillary, not Obama, is the unity candidate in West Virginia -- and most likely to vote Democratic in November.
    Interesting.  Obama has previously been attacked by Hillary supporters because Obama's supporters allegedly care more about the candidate than the party.

    Yet... when we see numbers that show Clinton's supporters unwilling to vote for Obama, it is used to bash Obama in a different way.

    So which is it?  

    It's this: if you believed that Obama should be (none / 0) (#61)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:59 PM EST
    supported because he was the sure thing, you were wrong. Time to switch brands!

    these numbers don't show (none / 0) (#69)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:51 PM EST
    clinton supporters unwilling to vote for obama.

    they show that 70+ percent have a favorable opinion of hillary clinton, and that 50+ percent have a favorable opinion of obama.

    the post doesn't refer to a survey asking will you/won't you vote for one or the other.  

    so i think you are mischaracterizing west virginia voters.  most dems have a favorable opinion of obama.  more have a favorable opinion of hillary.  that's all.


    Isnt West Virginia (none / 0) (#5)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:57:19 PM EST
    one of those small states that doesnt matter?

    West Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00:13 PM EST
    matters because it's in play. It COULD go blue, so not really comparable to Wyoming.

    Like Virginia (none / 0) (#18)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:55 PM EST
    So are we not counting red states? Awesome. (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:24:58 PM EST
    It is not (none / 0) (#40)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:28 PM EST
    a red state... It was BLUE in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996

    Bush carried the state in 2000 & 2004


    Yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:22:26 PM EST
    and it went red because Bush made promises about the resurgence and new uses for coal.

    Wanna win West Virginia?  Talk coal.


    Neutral (none / 0) (#17)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:32 PM EST
    Neutral state.

    Chango (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:12 PM EST
    You are suspended until next Monday.

    Your comment was disgusting. I hope you choose never to return.

    Does anyone remember that Bill.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by apolitiko on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:01:46 PM EST
    ....carried this state in both 1996 and 1992? I think the Clinton's have a good demographic mix for them in the state---not to mention a history of infrastructure.

    You can check out the kind of states bill carried on this neat political map at 270towin.com It'll be interesting to see if Hillary will have a similar impact.

    (and no, I'm not some bot lol)

    Cheers. Not only did Bill (none / 0) (#36)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM EST
    carry the state in 1992 and 1996, the state has a long history of voting Democratic.  Dukakis carried the state in 1988.  The state voted for Reagan in 1984, but we went for Carter in 1976 and 1980.  Take a look at the electoral map in 1980 and 1988 and you'll see how yellow dog Democratic the state was back in the 1980s.  Those were landslide years, near-about.  

    West Virginia also skews older than much of the country.  Like Florida, it fits Clinton's demographic profile.  Culturally, there's  also no problem with "dynasty" politics.  


    Is the date May 13? (none / 0) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM EST
    I use greenpapers.  It has May 13.

    Yes. May 13. (none / 0) (#27)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:27 PM EST
    You're right.  WVa primary is May 13.

    Wait a second... (none / 0) (#38)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:49 PM EST
    I thought red states don't count!

    You guys really need to tell me when you change the rules.

    Democratic WV Senators Byrd and Rockefeller (none / 0) (#47)
    by magisterludi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55:23 PM EST
    belie the redness of the state.

    And a Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:05:09 PM EST
    governor.  And a Democratic House of Delegates. And a Democratic State Senate.  And a Democratic Supreme Court, except for the justice that Don Blankenship bought hisself in 2004. (To be fair, he also apparently owns a Democratic state SC justice.)  2/3 Democratic representatives, and the only Republican is the daughter of a very, very popular former governor (and convict!).  I think the only other Republican in statewide office is the Secretary of State, an innocuous woman with the likable last name Ireland.  

    So no, not a "red state."  And while McCain is the ideal candidate for the Republican party elsewhere, his willingness to be sane about global warming ensures that the Democratic candidate will have at least a fair platform from which to make his/her case to the state.  


    You put the right Democrat there (none / 0) (#62)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:27:26 PM EST
    and the state will be blue as can be.  In voter registration there, Democrats strongly outnumber Republicans.

    It's only red (none / 0) (#52)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    if Obama gets the nomination.

    So... (none / 0) (#70)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:56:18 AM EST
    does regular Virginia count now too?

    We have a  Democratic governor and one (soon to be two) Democratic senators, and polls have Obama and McCain neck and neck.

    If we count now, make sure to tell Mark Penn. Because according to him, we're just another insignificant boutique state that Obama won in a landslide.


    va has gone republican since nixon in 68. (none / 0) (#78)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    i've lived in va over 40 years, the transition has been the cultivation of NVA (the section NE of the rappahannock river, to the shores of the potomac) as the bastion of blue in an otherwise red state.

    the reason we have had two democratic gov's in a row is because the last republican gov managed to so completely (even the republican majority state legislature thought so) muck up the budget. as well, he was an arrogant, condescending pr*ck, who wasn't even particularly well liked by members of his own party.

    former gov. mark warner will most likely succeed john warner as second sen. from va. bear in mind, he's from NVA, the blue section of the commonwealth.

    va will go red in nov., with respect to the presidential vote.


    Well, I'm depressed about all this. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:59 PM EST
    These are two good candidates and now they both seem too wounded to win. I want Hillary to win because I like her spirit and her healthcare and her knowledge of how Washington works. I know she was making a comeback prior to the Wright mess, but I don't want that to put her over the top.

    I'm pretty hardcore Clinton but I'm am not happy at all about the Wright sermons being used to hurt Obama. I haven't walked in the shoes of those who attend that church. Obama wasn't raised with the same obstacles some of those members were but I just can't hold all of this against him. I don't agree with what was said in some of those sermons but I can't tell you how bad I feel that this has happened.

    Hillary would have won WV anyway but now her win will be considered an anti-Obama vote when it shouldn't be. At least I hope it's not. I am for Hillary Clinton but not against Barack Obama. How did we end up here?

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by vj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:42:59 PM EST
    I also don't want to see the party so divided that one part or another of the coalition feels like staying home in November.

    Maybe I just need sleep vj, but I really do (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:17 PM EST
    feel stressed tonight. Those polling numbers showing how many won't vote for Obama bother me. I am disgusted with the media coverage of this race and how anti-Clinton they have been but I just can't hate Obama. I hate some of the things his surrogates and supporters have said but that goes both ways sometimes.

    I just don't like seeing any Democrat attacked and there's just not a lot of positive in this race right now.


    Teresa, if it helps (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM EST
    - the rest of the world isn't full of cable news nuttiness and blog-bile.  I live in WV.  Both Clinton and Obama were in the state over the past two days.  Both spent more time attacking McCain than each other.  Clinton didn't mention Obama at all, and he mentioned her only briefly.  Local public radio reported that there were Clinton voters going to the Obama rally in Beckley because they really wanted to see him and enjoy the attention.  I know it seems bleak right now, and some of these polls are problematic, but I believe that the party can heal itself.

    The local coverage of the visits was uniformly positive.  The Charleston Gazette reported that an 83 year old woman who had had heart surgery in October left her home for her first voluntary trip - other than medical appointments, et cetera - to go see Clinton in Charleston on Wednesday, and Obama attracted an overflow crowd at the University of Charleston this afternoon.  


    That does help liminal. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:49 PM EST
    I'm trying to limit my TV watching and have seen very little of the coverage about Rev. Wright. And your blog-bile is great. That's exactly what much of it is (not here).

    Thanks for the positive report. I think a mutual appearance, like a friendly debate would help me right now. The frustrating thing to me is that I don't think Obama or Clinton either is a bad person or would make a bad President. Their handlers are making them look bad.

    I despised the race-baiting used against the Clintons but now I don't like it in reverse. I want Clinton to win but I don't want Obama so wounded that he can't run again some day (if Michelle lets him). I just wonder if Obama had spoken up in defense of the Clintons if it would have come this far?


    Hillary's not pushing the Wright story. (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:36:01 PM EST
    I realize that you're not saying that she is, but I think it's important to recognize that even if we don't like it, that bell has been rung.

    A McCain aide was suspended today for promoting the Wright story. He was the person behind that mash-up on YouTube that shows clips of Wright interspersed with the clip of Michelle and her pride in country statement along with Malcolm X, reminding us of the original context of the chickens coming home to roost allusion, and Barack saying that words matter. If Obama gets the nomination, this will be an issue in the GE. And that mash-up was just the first, crude attempt to capitalize on this issue -- it won't be the last, though. And if the polling is to be trusted, then it looks likely that there is a growing anti-Obama feeling out there -- he does not have the same sort of support among Dems as Hillary does.

    We may not like it, but I would rather Obama get dirtied up a little now, than have him (and us) be destroyed in the GE.


    I can't disagree with you. I do believe that (none / 0) (#68)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:51:17 PM EST
    Hillary had nothing to do with this. I think I just got so fed up with MSNBC and CNN that I watched Fox for a while last night and then I remembered how awful it is when the right-wing attacks one of us.

    If Hillary pulls this out, I don't want people thinking that Rev. Wright is the reason. She was already polling great in PA and WV and had just won Ohio and Texas (sort of) and now we will have to hear that she didn't beat Obama, but that he lost.

    The attacks later on won't come directly from McCain's campaign so there won't be anyone to stop it. It's just discouraging. I don't think he can win now and I don't think the Super Delegates will give Hillary a chance.


    Teresa, politicians must expect attacks. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:45:04 AM EST
    I understand how you feel about the public attacks on Obama, and how unfair and exxagerated they seem to you.

    I feel the same way, but I have to accept them as normal. And if he were anyone else other than a candidate for high office in the US, I would agree with you completely. But the reality is that in the US, all candidates for high office are scrutinized in a similar way, and any "weaknesses" (real or perceived) are subject to such attacks. Personally, I don't think this is right, or reasonable, but at least it is fair.

    I grew up in Britain, where politicians' private lives, unless they break the law, and not so closely scrutinized. Or, the public is more forgiving of "scandals". But here in the US, all media coverage assumes a mindset that I regard as a widely accepted "public hypocrisy".

    In this hypocritical mindset, politicians (and, incidentally, sports heroes) are held to standards of behavior to which the vast majority of the population, and (ironically) members of the media, only pay lip service. In other words, political leaders are expected to be more perfect than almost everyone else, and risk being publicly humiliated by the media if they fall short of these standards in any way.

    In my opinion, this is an aspect of US politics that makes it very hard for anyone with real experience of the world to ever get elected to high office. And this dooms the US to be governed by people who are often better at looking good than being good at what they do. This, in turn, helps business leaders (who are not subjected to the same hypocritical public standards) to keep controlling policy and government in the US.

    All the same, these "rules," however hypocritical they may be, are well understood by all politicians. They have had to deal with them at the local and state level before they ever attain national prominence. So when they run for national office, there are usually not many surprises remaining to be "uncovered".

    But in this primary election, Clinton and Obama have not, until recently, been treated equally in this respect. Clinton has been attacked continually, with "scandals" being dredged up all the way back to the Bill Clinton Presidency. Obama, on the other hand, was being treated like the media's darling who could do no wrong. Comparatively, this treatment of the two candidates was highly unfair, and not in accordance with the normal media rules.

    So if the media is starting to treat Obama in the way it always treats nationally prominent politicians (and sports heroes), that is a good thing. Hillary has had to withstand a continual barrage of negative coverage. It's only fair that Obama should be measured by the same hypocritical standards as everyone else, and receive his fair share of public attacks. Because even if it had not happened during the primary, you can guarantee it would have surfaced before the General Election, once he was the Democratic nominee.

    In conclusion, even though you may feel that Obama is being attacked unfairly, in the bigger picture it's still fair and balanced, because all US politicians are subjected to the same unrealistic and sensationalized media coverage and the same unreasonable standards.


    I think we also need to keep in mind (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:19:29 AM EST
    the swift boating of McCain. That wasn't the Dems or their supporters, IIRC.

    Breaking news... (none / 0) (#72)
    by mg7505 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:18:35 AM EST
    ...wasn't sure where else to relay this: Bill Richardson endorses Obama. Will this change things?

    about Obama's donations (none / 0) (#80)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:49:12 AM EST
    this is interesting about Obama's donations

    This is thrilling news (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mike Frazier on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:50 AM EST
    I am thrilled to hear that Hillary has such a substantial lead over Obama in the polls in West Virginia.

    I have voted Republican and Libertarian in Presidential elections, but I have never voted for a Democrat for President before. However, I came out for Hillary even before she declared (with a bumper sticker from Cafe Press to prove it!). It has been clear to me since then that she is the best person to lead our country through these troubled times.

    I don't believe in "sour grapes," i.e. staying home on Election Day out of petulance because your candidate didn't win the nomination. But that's not the same thing as staying home out of despair. I believe both Obama and McCain are fatally flawed, each for their own reasons, and that a choice between them is no choice at all. For me, it's Hillary or no one.

    No, she's not perfect. But she doesn't pretend to be. I like that in a candidate. Don't you?