WV Poll: Clinton By 36

Suffolk University has Hillary Clinton winning West Virginia by 36. Many Obama supporters and media pundits will scream nasty things about West Virginia if that is the result. The reason is they have no understanding that demography has been political destiny in this campaign. West Virginia is 97% white. Barack Obama has not gotten more than 40% of the white vote since Wisconsin, where he won the white vote. So a huge defeat in west Virginia was to be expected. Let me share with you some exit polling regarding white voters in other states. First, from Obama's crushing win in NC - Clinton won whites 61-37. In PA, Clinton won whites 63-37. In Ohio, Clinton won whites 64-34. In MA, Clinton won whites 58-40. In Maryland, Clinton won whites 52-42. Missouri, Clinton won whites 57-39. And the same type of results were found in TN, AR, NJ, GA, MS, AL, FL and so on.

Whatever people want to say about the results in West Virginia tomorrow, it is unfair and a mistake to pretend West Virginia is an anomaly. Outside of the West (Obama won whites in CA, WA, ID, UT, CO, KS, etc) Obama has not fared well with white voters. (Out West, Obama has fared poorly with Latinos.) This is not an Appalachia issue, as some have suggested.

One last thing. the Obama camp predicted a 12 point Clinton win in West Virginia.

Comments closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Server Upgrades Tonight | The Candidates on Federal Marijuana Club Raids >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Went to WVU (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:58:25 AM EST
    There was a serious economic town/gown divide at the time.

    I don't know if this is verboten (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:40 AM EST
    but someone mentioned last night that in states with very low minority populations, such as OR (less than 2%), Obama does better than in states with higher minority populations.

    I don't see how anyone can ignore her taking WVA and KY by such large margins, but then MSNBC did completely ignore FL--which, to my thinking, just showed that no matter if almost 2 million Americans were doing something, if it shows Clinton in a good light, it's not news.

    There are already some dissenters to the Obama inevitability theory in newspapers and magazines.  Let's see what they do with this.

    obama Is Already Fashioning His GE Run (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    and I hope these dissenters yell it loud from the rooftops about his acting as though he already has the nomination.  I don't think, if he is the nominee, that playing the race card is going to be a winner for him in the GE.  On a lighter note, Bob Barr is entering the presidential race today as a libertarian.

    Even my Republican boss is mad (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    about them calling for Hillary to quit (and no, he isn't a Rush dittohead idiot Republican, he's just your average rich white guy Republican). He isn't a political junkie, but first thing this morning when I walked in he said to me "Why is everybody telling Hillary to quit? I thought neither had enough delegates yet." I told him Obama is planning a victory party on May 20 and he was astonished and thought that was absurd. My point in relating this story: even people with no dog in the fight, as long as they don't suffer from CDS, can see what a farce this is.  

    I don't see this as a problem. (none / 0) (#172)
    by independent thinker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:40:05 AM EST
    The math strongly favors Obama at this point, even taking into account big wins in WV and KY for Clinton. There is a very real possibility that Obama will have the 2025 needed to clinch the nomination after KY and OR.

    Obama has been very careful to say publicly in recent interviews that Clinton has a right to continue...and he has refused to answer questions about possible VP selections because it is "premature".

    But by the same token, turning his attention to McCain and testing out General Election themes is perfectly acceptable in my mind. Now if he were blatently saying things like "this thing is over" or "Clinton should drop out now", that would be going too far at this point.


    Uh (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:10:02 AM EST
    Not only is 2025 NOT the magic number as stated factually here over and over again, but there is no way he will have that number after OR and KY vote, so you have your Obama talking point wrong independent thinker.  His campaign are contending that they will have the "majority of the pledged delegates" at that point using the incorrect 2025 number.  The arrogance of a display like this is astounding, for his sake I hope he doesn't declare victory after these losses.  He will look much better by waiting the 2 more weeks for the primaries to end.

    Actually, he needs to wait (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    until after the convention. The numbers that separate are not so great that the gap can't be ignored should another misspeak, or questionable association take place. Any declaration of victory is empty without a concession from the other side, especially when he has not won anything. He's just a little bit ahead, and in this game, that's not a win.

    You are incorrect (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    it is NOT stated factually that the magic number is not 2025.  It is an opinion based on the argument that both states should be seated with full delegates.

    The FACT is that the magic number currently is 2025.  If the rules committee doesn't change things on May 31st it remains 2025.

    Where you are creating this aura of arrogance from, I have no idea.  Obama has repeatedly said that the race is not over in any way.


    He did do well in states with low AA... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:58 AM EST
    populations, but these were WESTERN States, WVa and Ky, are Southern states, as well as that they are close to those with large black population, so the tendency (not racist)will be to favor the candidate that shows more of their core values.
    I'm sure O's "bitter, gun and religious clinging poor whites..." pronouncements have done more than anyone else to turn these voters against him, that's all.
    How ever the "creative" crowd wants to spin it, the truth cannot be denied.

    WV not is not a "Southern state" (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by KD on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    West Virginia split from Virginia to go with the North during the Civil War. Wheeling is 50 miles from Pittsburgh. But West Virginia is an Appalachian state with a bunch of people who need good jobs that don't ruin the environment.

    KD, you're right,... (none / 0) (#200)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    I did not express myself correctly. Wva. and Ky. border southern states, and whose proximity gives them some awareness of southern populations characteristics. BTW, a couple of Kentuckian friends, call KY. the other southern state.

    There are different types of (none / 0) (#205)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    "Southern states"...Read a great article about it here a while ago...


    Dems could have a real shot at VA, KY, TN, AR...especially as more people move into the region and it becomes progressively blue-er.


    ps: meant better with whites (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:03:19 AM EST
    Josh Marshall over at TPM (none / 0) (#52)
    by independent thinker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    did a piece on this some time back. There is some evidence from exit poll data that in states with small AA populations (say, less than 8%) and states with higher AA populations (over 15%) Obama does well. But in states with AA populations between those two percentages he has had a harder time reaching white voters. The implication is that when the AA population is significant enough to be a factor, but not high enough to overcome some sense of competition,  Obama has not done as well. This is, of course, somewhat anecdotal.

    It is an interesting (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by eric on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:54:14 AM EST
    phenomenon.  What happens, I believe, is that states that have large black populations have historically had to deal with race issues more openly.  This results in more of a racial identity for people.  Leaving aside blatant racism, the identity forms the basis for different behaviors, like voting.

    In states like mine, Minnesota, where only 4.4% of the population is black, we don't have the same sort of history with race relations.  We tend to be of the "color-blind" mindset.  (This is not to dismiss the real problems that we do have.)  But, people here don't seem to have developed the same racial identity.

    On the other hand, states like Ohio have had open racial conflict and the lines are drawn, so to speak.  Even assuming that racial prejudice isn't present, racial "identity" has been established.

    What this comes down to is this:  a Minnesotan who doesn't necessarily have as much of a racial identity doesn't see identity as a factor in voting behavior.  Someone from Ohio, who has seen race as a dividing factor, sees his identity differently.

    That's my theory, anyway.


    WV hurts that theory as does KY (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    as does IN as does . . . .

    That theory has fallen apart frankly.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#88)
    by independent thinker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    I almost said as much in my previous post, but decided to keep it short...and you busted me ;-).

    Surely Clinton won the White voters in California? (none / 0) (#197)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:16:51 AM EST
    She won here.

    Historically, in the GE: how few White voters have Democrats ever won with? Percentage. Although Obama wins 90% of Black voters, isn't that only 12% of the whole population?


    you can be sure there will be enough insults (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    from the creatives to make absolutely sure we will lose the state in the general.
    bu this West Virginian quoted in the Financial Times is correct:

    "If he is the nominee, the Democrats have no chance of winning West Virginia," said Missy Endicott, a 40- year-old school administrator. "He doesn't understand ordinary Americans."

    You (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by sas on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    are right on this.  And it will be racism, racism, racism 'til the cows come home.  

    and then the cows (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:06 AM EST
    will be racists

    Only the white ones! (none / 0) (#34)
    by BrandingIron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    Heh. Heh. Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:36 AM EST
    Most cows are multi-racial! :-)

    What about the black and white ones...will (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:44 AM EST
    they play the race card?

    this sub-thread (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:43 AM EST
    is udderly ridiculous!

    Here's what kills me: (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:49 AM EST
    If it IS racism, then what is Obama going to do about it?

    Seems to me if that many Democrats are racist, Obama should not go anywhere near the Presidential race, since he has no chance whatsoever of winning.

    [cricket cricket cricket]


    and these are democrats we are talking about (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:19:20 AM EST
    has anyone notices we havent even started talking about independents and republicans yet?

    We don't need them to win. (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:21:03 AM EST
    Obama will simply register 20 million new voters and they'll all vote for him. Out with the Bubbas, baby!

    /drinks more Kool-Aid


    Don't drink too much Kool-Aid (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:22 AM EST
    It will make your tongue too RED.  LOL

    Oh Yeah!!!


    madamab, that is snark but (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    i am wondering if that is in fact part of the axelrod agenda. it would explain their attitude toward the core democratic base and the idea that they can have a new democratic party. the divisions that showed up in the primaries just might be permanenet in their eyes for political/power reasons of course. that they are ignoring in fact the latino vote says this is dillusional to me. well maybe the latino vote is ignoring them.

    If Chris Bowers is representative (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:49:11 AM EST
    simply magnificent (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by RalphB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    response to the lunacy

    clap clap clap!!!


    thanks for that link, madamab (none / 0) (#157)
    by kempis on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    What a great, fact-based and rational response to Bowers' bizarro manifesto.

    [blushing] (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    Thank you!

    I am not going along with this hostile takeover of my Party. I don't care what anyone says.


    Yet another page Axelrod has taken from... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    ...the Rove book. Except that Rove knew exactly who his 20 million new voters would be....fundamentalist Christians. Not sure who Axelrod is counting on...young people?

    well by process of elimination (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    what other group does he have to appeal to in the election especially with all the other groups shown the door. the young college students are limited in number and generally interest. he has the older aa vote pretty much at the break point limit. so the young minority voter seems to be the prize for axelrod to me considering all this discussion about the "new" party.

    The largest number of those would be Latino... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    ...and I don't think Axelrod will be able to win them with the unity/pony schtick. Maybe they plan to do a big push against anti-immigration agenda after the primaries.

    that is an interesting question. (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    mccain has appealed to the latino voters. at one time the dems were appealing as well. but with the new democratic party with a large aa base, what will the new policy thinking be?

    "latino voters" (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    against Obama this is McCains Ace in the hole.
    they like him.
    they do not like Obama.

    A New Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by LibOne on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    may be the goal.  I have to ask - to what end?  What are they trying to achieve by creating a new party of elites and AA's?  I just don't understand their agenda.

    The "Creative Class" were nerds (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    in high school, and now they think they have a shot at being the power in the New Plutocratic Party. That's my take, anyway.

    (By the way, AA's are not really part of this new coalition. Their votes are expected but not earned by actually doing anything to address their needs.)


    AA's will be a part of the new (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    coalition only as long as they produce charismatic candidates to front the coalition.  After that - there is a bus with their name on it coming down the road. They can take a spot underneath it with us 'old' ladies.

    think about it. what are the (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    chances of a long term coupling of latte drinkers and aa voters holding? the answer is zero!

    Don't Need To Talk About Indies And Republicans (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    The Democratic Party is now the racist party. Current meme is that Indies and Republicans are voting for Obama so they are absolved of this label.

    Right on.. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by daria g on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    It's such a complicated issue too & becomes all about finger pointing and sound bites.  Racism takes so many forms and I certainly see it frequently in white collar workplaces.  So I believe.. at once, there's more racism out there than just the 5-10% of voters who say race was a factor in their vote, and also, just because people are some degree of racist doesn't mean they won't vote for him, actually.  

    I figure.. come on, I know a few white liberals at a job I had not long ago who were def. condescending and made all kinds of assumptions in their interactions with people of color, and yet, I'm 100% certain they would vote for Obama.


    if he loses it will be blamed on his race (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    but it is far more complicated than that.
    I think you are correct. very very few people will actually vote against him because he is black.
    many many will vote against him because of his "bitter" comments. because of Wright. because of his wife.  because of his vague Muslim connections.
    there are so many reasons he will lose that have nothing whatever to do with race.
    but that will all be lost in the post game spin.

    And all the women who don't vote (5.00 / 5) (#175)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    for him because of his misogynist campaign will also be accused of racism. Why a candidate who wants to win deliberately alienates 51% of the voting population is a mystery to me. Obama just doesn't understand the deep, deep anger his campaign has unleashed among the women of America.

    I am so disgusted with the Democratic Party that I am thinking of starting my own political party, the American Women's Party. The party platform would be issues that MATTER to American women, no wars to kill our children, clean air and water, health care for everyone, an economy where people other than the rich can make a decent living, housing, etc. etc. Anyone else think this is an idea worth pursuing?


    That wouldn't just be (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    a women's party.  The Dem party used to hold those ideals within the tent.  It's what the Dem party has ceased to be, it just needs a new name and some dedicated bloggers to provide a home so that people can join.  Time for the party to splinter off the NDP (New Democratic Party) and they can take the jack@ss symbol with them. :)

    YES!!! n/t (none / 0) (#198)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    wait till the general is in (none / 0) (#110)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:04:56 AM EST
    full swing. the tone might be different.

    That woman is bitter (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:11:59 AM EST
    and doesn't feel comfortable with people who don't look like her.

    /drinks more Kool-Aid.


    I would get right on that (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    you have about 6 months

    Oh, please. (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    We are not appluading racists, we are acknowledging a very real problem.

    We want to beat McCain but we are worried that Obama can't do it.

    Clear now?


    Why is it acceptable for AA to do (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by felizarte on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    "identity voting" and whites are called racists for doing so?  The Obama campaign made their monster.  Let them deal with it, now and in the GE if he is the nominee.

    interesting isnt it (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    90% of blacks voting for Obama.  no problem.

    Indeed and if Whites voted like AA in W. V. (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by felizarte on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    the results would be Clinton 92%, Obama 10%.  One might even go as far as saying that there more whites who are not racists.

    Kerry lost ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    ...because he was a Massachusetts aristocrat without the common touch.

    He also had a weird propensity to contradict himself:

    He wanted to gain the political benefits of being both a war hero and war protestor.  He was politically illogical.

    He still says stupid things that make your head hurt.  Bush is stupid but he's fairly careful about the issues.


    Re: California (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:08:37 AM EST
    Which exit polls are you looking at, BTD?

    the CNN/CBS breakdown of the white vote has Clinton taking it by 1 point (46-45%).  The NY Times polls doesn't have a "race" breakdown, but by extrapolating the race/gender breakdown, Obama wins the white vote by 6 points.

    In general, I've found the CNN data to be more reliable -- the Times doesn't seem to bother doing a final adjustment, and provides far less information in general.

    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sas on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    taking the white vote by 1 point?

    Where?  In a particular state?

    She's been pounding him all over with the white vote margins.


    CNN looks right (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    they say that white women gave Hillary 56% of the vote and white men gave her 35%.

    It looks like Hillary and Obama were essentially tied among white voters in CA.


    Since CA (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    Clinton has increased her popularity among white men IIRC. That's why she's been getting such a high percentage of that demographic.

    Can't we acknowledge HRC's accomplishment? (5.00 / 11) (#121)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    She has massively turned around the vote of white men over the course of the primary season.  This is pretty impressive.  How has she done this?  I'd say by earning respect for her toughness and by campaigning concretely on the economy which is more resonant with these voters than the hopium.  It probably doesn't hurt that Obama became the "black candidate" simultaneously thanks to his own race baiting and of course Jeremiah Wright.  And as a bonus, Obama basically told small town America to f-off, which couldn't have helped, as he pasted a big elite liberal sticker on his own forehead.  

    But my point here is that Hillary didn't turn Obama black (or elite).  He was black from the beginning.  He could not have started with such a high number among white men if they were racist (or if racism was their most important factor in voting).  This is all cultural.  Obama went from post-partisan smart and nice guy who happens to have darker skin to the radical, anti-American angry black man who thinks white people are crackers.  And what was Clinton doing in the mean-time, she was becoming a Rocky/Annie Oakley combo platter running on populist themes.  She was overcoming the sexist stereotypes held by white men, while Obama was busy scoring a twofer, falling into both the racist and elitist liberal stereotypes held by white men.

    Race and sex and perhaps most importantly class are all at work here, but they do not have to be total destiny.  You can move these groups.  You can defuse the stereotypes.  But you have to know how.  Clinton has figured out how.  Obama not so much.


    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Athena on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    Great points.  Hillary's electoral accomplishments are ignored, while Obama's failures become her fault.  

    And Obama's cultural identity now - post-Wright, bittergate, etc. - is quite fixed and unfavorable for him.  I don't think that what he says in the coming months can undo this largely self-made portrait.


    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by liminal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    Anecdotally, canvassing and phone banking in WV, I've found that undecided men tend to really respond when I emphasize Clinton's toughness and resilience, particularly when discussing the economy, the importance of enforcing regulations on banks and markets, et cetera.  

    That's absolutely right. (none / 0) (#132)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:14:09 AM EST
    But no, we cannot acknowledge her accomplishments. We can only blame her for everything Obama has done to himself.

    What a wonderful world.


    extrapolated gender in both polls (none / 0) (#42)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:45 AM EST
    okay, I extrapolated the race/gender numbers from both the NYTimes and CNN/CBS exit polls in CA.

    Actual final percentages
    Clinton 51.5%, Obama 43.2% Margin=7.3 points

    NY Times Gender/Race extrapolation totals
    Clinton 50.8%, Obama 44.4% Margin = 6.4 points

    CNN/CBS Gender/Race extrapolation totals
    Clinton 52.6% Obama 41.5% margin = 9.1 points

    The Times extrapolation is closer to the actual results, and given that the Times has Obama up by 6 among whites, and CNN has Clinton up by 1, I think that the Obama probably did win the white vote in CA, but by 2 or 3 points.


    Don't forget the Hispanic vote- Most Important! (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:49:17 AM EST
    Please, oh PLEASE, do not lump the Hispanic vote with the AA vote.  Two completely different communities and two communities that are actually competing against each other for jobs and social resources.

    No mad love going on there.

    Too much emphasis on the black vote when the Hispanic voting blocks are very powerful in CA, the South West and Florida.

    Of all the states Obama won, I'd be happy to see him win 3 (VT, IL, MD/DC).  Everyone is comparing Obama's polls to Kerry in 2004.

    I'm going to compare him to McGovern of '72.  I get the nasty feeling we are about to have the "McGovern of our generation" in November.


    yup i noted earlier that (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:10:58 AM EST
    the axelrod agenda seems to have ignored the latino vote or at least in part they ignored him. irony, maybe that have too much hope and bitter doesn't appeal to them!

    W. Va.... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    ...if Clinton is beating him by 36 points in polling there, that suggests a 70-30 split of the white vote, or thereabouts.  That would be significantly lower than in North Carolina, but a little bit higher than in Mississippi(where I think whites went about 3-1 for Clinton).
    Statistically, if ever a state demographic were "non-college educated, low-to-moderate income rural whites", West Virginia is it.  Anecdotally speaking, just because the number of African-American residents is small, does not mean that racial antipathy is not fairly high there--my wife, who is A-A, will not set foot in that state.  Does that mean that most people voting for Clinton are voting based on race?  Of course not.  But if you start with a 60-40 split based simply on the theory that Clinton is more effective right now at connecting with this demo, then race only has to be a factor with about 20% of the electorate, in order to skew the results to 70-30.

    I lived in that state... (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    In that state you have a range of income levels that go from high to low. You have a high tech corridor. You have some areas where the folks have never gone out of the state. And you have some world travelers. You have a lot of great colleges and you have quite a few people who have graduated from HS...and that's it. You have some diversity...but not a lot. Charleston is right over the bridge from Cincy, OH.

    Has your wife ever been there? The mountains are beautiful. And the camping is wonderful...the hiking and biking too. (It's mostly an outdoors adventure type tourism industry)

    And you have a lot of misrepresentation of the people based on folks like the Greaseman.

    Why has she made that oath?


    I'm sure all of that is true... (none / 0) (#187)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    ...and yet it can also be true that there's racial antipathy and large pockets of intolerance at the same time.  You don't need for every other West Virginian to be racially biased for there to be a problem--you probably only need 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 for there to be a problem.  

    WV has a "rep" with African-Americans as a not-very-tolerant place, as far as I can tell.  That recent incident where a woman was kidnapped, raped and tortured for a week probably didn't help that image much.


    I Don't Think He Meant (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by flashman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    she can actually get 80%.  He was making a point about the turnout needed to make up ground in the pop. vote.  You should read it again, carfully.  

    Classically Taken Out Of Context (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by flashman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    if you quote him word for word, it should be considered in context.  It's clearly meant to be hypothetical; even 80% of 100K votes wouldn't do her any good.  That's what he's saying here.  The conclusion that her base deserts if she doesn't get they hypothetical portion is inaccurate, IMO.  But I'm sure Clinton's quote will be abused in that way, just as so many other of his has been.

    Good Lord, so sad that people don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    the "drama" of politics.

    Bill knows the game.  He know she's can't win 80% of the vote.  By the way, no one said anything negative about the 90+ AA votes that Obama gets.  No calls that "racist".  And the MSM is afraid to mention anything about the lopsided racial voting for Obama, in fear of being called "racist".  

    And this is why I've said Obama has played the race card this entire election season.  And that's why McCain will win in November.


    He's not saying "can" (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Klio on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST
    meaning that she will.  He's saying can as in 'could.'  

    His point is that even were Hillary to get 80% of the vote, it wouldn't matter should turnout be low.  He's asking them to be neither discouraged nor complacent and to go out and vote for her.



    Thank you for clearing it up (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:20 AM EST
    I know the Obama followers like to construe the words of the Clintons to dismiss their statements.

    Pity Bill has been demonized through this entire process.  


    Quite all right, flashman (none / 0) (#47)
    by kmblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    We'll have to agree to disagree
    about Joe's alleged point. ;)

    Not hard to understand (none / 0) (#96)
    by daria g on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    He was talking about the importance of the popular vote.  The number, not the percentage.  It's very clear.  Thus, 80% of 100,000 is less preferable to getting 60% of 250,000, say.

    The Hard Part (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by flashman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    is being honest.  Frankly, Clinton's words have dishonestly been twisted by the other campaign too many times.  I expect that in the GE.  It's disgraceful to see it happen in the primary.

    80%? (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM EST
    man them goal posts just keep getting further and further away.

    I don't conclude that her demographic base has given up on her. And that's in spite of the media and nearly everyone else telling them they should.

    well, i watched hannity last night! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:58 AM EST
    ok, i said it. ya'll have me fair and square. i watched part of faux. lets head drop, lowers eyes!
    i'll admit it during this season sometimes i linger there more than i did before while channel surfing.

    my delayed point is that he was showing fairly recent clips of michelle and talking about her very negative view of america and the type of country it is. it seems to me to be reflected somewhat in some of obama's comments ie the "bitter" comment. maybe axelrod is trying to build a coalition of young voters who all think they got a raw deal. and looking back at the thinking of trinity, i wonder. hence we may see greater divisions in the votes along these lines. we certainly do right now in the women who feel it.

    if that is the case then axelrod will have no choice but to issue appeals to this type of voter in the general election and hence even wider divisons down the road and not unity.

    Michelle (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    is a disaster waiting to happen.

    My husband agrees with you. (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    He was very offended by her "really proud of America" statement. And he is an old hippie!

    she has a new speech going around (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:29 AM EST
    that we will hear more about.
    she is going to be a big problem for him in the general.

    young voters (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM EST
    Can you please expand on this theme of young voters thinking they got a raw deal?

    I have not heard it before.


    Well, the usual anti-establishment tendencies (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by daria g on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:17:38 AM EST
    Plus I bet the war in Iraq is a bigger issue comparatively (I do not have data though), and they are too young to appreciate the Clinton 90's.  And it's true, Obama is young, cool, and stylish, riffs on pop culture, uses slang sometimes, makes occasional hip hop references.  Such as the gestures he made that were def offensive to Hilary, but at the same time isn't it neat that the "dirt off your shoulder" thing is in a Jay-Z song.  That just seems like being cool not crossing a line, esp when your friends are all playing Grand Theft Auto.

    And I get that he appeals to young people wanting to do something meaningful and positive, to make a difference in the world, but not knowing what at all to do.. he tells them what they can do is.. elect him.  Not sure what beyond that?  Seems like telling them the easy way to make change is enough, just vote Obama and you get this magical "new politics" and nobody has to do any hard work of figuring out what change they want or how to make it happen.  

    I can see how the tone of his campaign is almost religious and is going to make his supporters (esp young people who haven't had the experience of seeing a candidate they strongly support lose) get deeply personally invested in it.  So yeah, if he loses they'll personally think they got a raw deal, the "old politics" won the day, etc.  I think it's better now than in November, and I doubt they'll refuse to go to the polls if they don't get Obama.  Most all the Dean people I knew are still actively engaged in politics four years later even after a heartbreaking crash and burn.


    factor in the average joe/jane (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    getting fed up with being called bitter all the while their way of life is slipping away. do you honestly believe they'll sit back and not go to the polls in record numbers? i sure don't and neither do republicans. i suggest that needs to be factored and soon.

    video games and The Kind. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    what is hard to take about that? (none / 0) (#97)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:56:33 AM EST
    frankly i don't have to defend that. i am simply commenting that is the possible axelrod agenda. go take a look at the clips. take a good look at the brush his shoulder, clean her off his shoe, and give hillary the bird show. is that to appeal to the older aa voters? i think not!

    sorry i thought you said it was hard to take! (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:51 AM EST
    is is hard for me to see this happening. shakes head! i wake up hoping to see a real campaign with issues being discussed and fear what campaigning like this will do.

    now I'm really confused! (none / 0) (#133)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:15:28 AM EST
    it was not an attack question, by the way...I was trying to figure out what that raw deal may be?

    • the draft?
    • cell phone service drop out?
    • TM charges?
    • paying high rent at mom & dads?

    sorry...I know many fine and upstanding young people. Just found it incredulous that they would have adopted a "raw deal" complaint scenario.(except about the cost of college and college loans, ah course)

    well, there is a large school drop out (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:22:27 AM EST
    rate in the minority communities. the prison population is primarily young minorities. i am thinking in terms of those potential voters. take a look at the thinking in the trinity sermons. it is separation of black/white and blaming the white population for their woes. that is reflected in michelle's comments and barack's to a lesser extent.

    i am not trying to diss anyone here or be racist. i am simply following the vidoes and statements made by the players in this election. you hear about the new democratic party. now the amount of latte liberals is very limited. the amount of young college students is very limited. what does that leave? the young minority as potential voters is my guess and i believe axelrod's.


    thanks (none / 0) (#161)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    that's the explanation I was looking for.

    welcome, and i hope i am wrong. (none / 0) (#165)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    She fits the saying (none / 0) (#106)
    by themomcat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    that behind every successful man is a pushy woman. Oy!

    Michele's outlook on America kinda (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by athyrio on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    confirms the fact that she is influenced by that Rev. Wright who she listened to for so long...It is almost proof positive as she obviously has a hard time covering it up in her speeches...I think that is sad but also racism on her part...I think whites are not the only demographic that can be racist and yet noone is saying it...There is a degree of racism in the fact that he gets over 90% of the AA vote....IMO...

    Strong evidence (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:26:25 AM EST
    against Obama's electability hopes.

    I'd say that these are 'numbers you can believe in.'

    that kind of talk makes the unity pony cry (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    Speaking of Unity Ponies (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by katiebird on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM EST
    Look at Reclusive Leftist's, Write Your Own Caption

    No, it's not a cult. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    Why would you think that?

    I'm not sure if Obama is supposed to be Jesus, Elvis or a combination of both.

    [impales eye with fork)


    Zombie in Scene 18: Senndd mmorrre bbrrrainns (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    This seems to capture the phenomenon pretty neatly. It was in another TL thread. It's so perfect. (Who can resist Cake?)

    After HRC nails WV, I'm sure the Collective Class's group snit over how she talked to white voters who are -- get this -- white will be sputtering on all thrusters. [/that woman will do anything to get elected]


    all that clacking about hillary and (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    her "white" comments just might backfire on the media. folks are getting tired of that i think.

    that is strong, katiebird. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:03:35 AM EST
    it speaks louder than any captions.

    That doesn't look like Obama.... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    ...it looks like that R&B singer Mario. But I guess that's the point.

    at least he is not walking (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    ON the water.

    Obama doesn't walk on water... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:06:21 AM EST
    he transcends water -- like he transcended the Great Lakes from the the upper mid-west all the way to the Pacific Border states...

    It's hard work (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:08:08 AM EST
    transcending 57 states, but Obama says: Yes We Can!



    I heard Obama walked across Lake Michigan (none / 0) (#104)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:00:02 AM EST
    Yep, I heard it on the Oprah Show when she was preaching at the Church of Obama.

    And everybody knows Oprah knows everything.



    the fainting fans at rallies (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    was enough for me.
    not interested in a president who has fans fainting at rallies.

    IIRC He Did Better Than Walk Across Water (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    He had the awesome power to move the Great Lakes to Oregon.

    This article by an AA finally addresses it (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by athyrio on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    Nice conclusion to the article. (none / 0) (#55)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    This is about facing facts. And history will reflect poorly on Democrats if they believe it is virtuous to ignore race in the name of nominating the first black candidate for the White House - even if it means giving the Republicans a better chance to once again walk away with the big prize of the presidency.

    What he said.


    WV Is More of the Same for Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Athena on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    A better view of West Virginia and its nearly all-white electorate is that it fully reveals the depth of Hillary's electoral strengths that have been ignored by the MSM in the other states, which you quote above.

    Hillary's ongoing vote majorities are simply ratified by WV, not disputed by them.

    WV is just NC without the influence of the AA vote, which almost entirely goes to Obama.

    It's important to maintain a narrative which does not paint WV as an outlier - but as a continuation of Hillary's voting strengths.


    Yes, it shows her strength (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:07:57 AM EST
    It shows that Hillary can get the conservative liberal vote and pull Independents.  These are the votes that the Dems need in November.

    If Hillary would have been the nominee, the AA vote would have come out for her, regardless.  This is something the DNC has failed MISERABLY in understanding.  It will be McCain who will pick up all those conservative and moderate Democrats, not Obama.

    McCain will pick up a large percentage of the Hispanic vote, especially in Florida (Cuban community has a lot of pull in Southern Florida).  

    WV is not an outlier.  It is the precursor for the November Election.


    Juan Williams (none / 0) (#208)
    by angie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    has been awesome this year in being able to see the flaws in Obama, even though he himself is an AA man.

    Wow!!!! (none / 0) (#94)
    by hairspray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:55:10 AM EST
    According to the NYT yesterday, (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by bob h on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    Ohio and Penn. are in play for McCain against Obama.  With Hillary, they would not be.  What is the sense in this?

    Out with the Bubbas! (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:38:54 AM EST
    They are building a New Plutocratic Party. They don't need HRC's voters. They are expanding the map.

    Pick your poison.

    Logical and sensible, it ain't.

    Lose us the GE, it will.


    Out with the Working Class? (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:42:32 AM EST
    In with the "Creative Class"?   With that kind of mindset, you better start practicing saying President John McCain.

    LOL, I was just reading (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:29 AM EST
    the Bowers Manifesto.

    That's not how I see it. I agree with you 100%.

    Obama is a sure loser in the GE. We realize this or we inaugurate McCain.



    it will do more than that. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    it will lose coatails and possibly the opportunity for the democrats to capture the white house for a decade. who knows if axelrod gins this up some more, we might lose the senate.

    Remember when (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by daria g on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    There was talk about Obama winning with near 60% of the vote and helping Dems win a super majority?  And how we can't just be content to win the White House with 50+1?  I don't hear that any more.

    watching the death of a dream is hard. (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    "death of a dream" (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    I think most readers here get this.

    Coattails are very important (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by themomcat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    In NYC the 13th Cd is now in play because of Vito Fossella's indiscretions. The district has been strongly Republican for over 25 years but went for HRC in 2000 and 2006. They will not vote for Obama, I am certain of that, and that will hurt any Democrat opposing Fossellla or his replacement.

    And still the pundits (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    are wondering why the Hillary hardcore are rooting for her to stay in the race.

    Geez, it's only control of the free world - White House and Congress - that's at stake.  (insert eye-rolling icon here)


    if the media chooses to ignore (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    this data and well they might, then it is going to show up in the general. some of the clips i mention that i saw last night you can rest assured will show up in the general. also the racist dog whistles will start having less impact. you can only throw that around just so long.

    I still think it is a question of judgement (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by athyrio on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    like in the Rev. Wright case and not out and out racism...People (including me) are having a hard time believing he sat in the pews of that church for over 20 years listening to that racist crap and that the charges of racism are a bit much considering they came from the black reverand not the whites who up until then were apparently willing to vote for him...

    It is about judgment for me. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    Obama has been running on how awesome his judgment is compared to HRC's. I wasn't too impressed with him but was happy about the excitement his campaign was generating.

    Then, I learned about Wright.

    At that moment, I knew he was done with Independents, Republicans and some more conservative Democrats.

    You don't stay in that church if you want to be President of the United States. You can't talk your way out of that. Oprah left years ago because she knew it was too controversial for a talk-show host and actress.

    Why didn't Obama's vaunted judgment tell him the same thing?


    I would argue that Obama's win in Iowa (5.00 / 20) (#90)
    by Anne on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:52:56 AM EST
    allowed people to believe that Obama really was the post-racial candidate - that America was color-blind and race relations were in much better shape than we ever dreamed there really was a lot of hope in that win.  Then came New Hampshire where, still, he did well among white voters, but that was also where sexism reared its ugly head, planting the seeds of the gender divide.

    Obama failed to carry his post-racial message and that image into the SC primary, which I think was the racial turning point in this primary season.  
    Faced with the SC primary with its large black population, I would have thought Obama's focus would have been on white voters, trying to show that his appeal in Iowa was not a fluke; the choice he made was to demonize the Clintons among the black community, which, for a lot of people,  not only killed the post-racial message, it set the tone for the rest of the campaign.  It effectively sewed up the black vote for him in that and every other state with a large black population, but it also widened a division between black and white that he should have been narrowing via his message.

    Sure, he continued to do well in the caucus states, but that was where the class wars were born.  It was where he could point to appeal among white voters, but they were the educated, higher-income segment.  I often wonder where we would be if the caucus states had held primaries instead - if Obama's electoral weaknesses would have been exposed a lot earlier, changing the dynamic of the whole race.

    I am sad to say that not only do I feel like Obama has set race relations back decades, but he has fueled the class war that has been growing these last 8 years.

    This is not unity - and I despair that Obama has the first clue how he will unite a country whose divisions he, himself, has contributed to.

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic that it was Clinton who was seen as the polarizing candidate, when Obama has shown a distrubing ability to set people off against each other at every turn?

    I' d like to give you a 10!! (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by hairspray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    Me too! (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    Excellent, excellent comment.

    I was going to say the very same thing (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by flashman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST
    accusing the Clinton's of racism (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    actually swung a huge number of white voters into Obama's column.

    liberals so conditioned to react GOP racial dogwhistles that they imagined one of their own was indulging in the same thing.

    When I first looked at Obama I looked at Jacksons' old coalition to see what he needed to do to improve on a fairly when executed campaign (Jackson dominated southern states just like Obama). It was  a nice example of how Obama might fair himself and the potential pitfalls he might experience. So it's mystifying why any comparison to Jackson should be seen as an insult.  Jackson provided much of the data that Axelrod is using today.

    The next female to run a big campaign will be closely examining Clinton's campaign and many comparisons will be be drawn. Wil that be seen as insulting?

    On Iowa--The Media hid the obsessive nature of Obama's first book and the tenor of his church. Those voters were deceived to some extent. Edwards and Clinton had that oppo information and decided to not use it.  

    So now we have a set of primaries that are clouded by only half knowing the candidate--these primaries will determine the selection.


    Your post it right on the money!!! (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    Thank you for making excellent points.  Keep 'em comin'!

    black is white (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:22:20 AM EST
    up is down.
    good is bad.
    division is unity.

    You worded it beautifully (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:30:38 AM EST
    I think that about sums it up. They panicked after NH. The thing is, People would not vote for Condi, because she is ineffective, but they would have voted for Powell. He could have been on the ticket and won before the Iraq debacle. Oprah is popular and could run for office. In other words, although people are divided now, Obama did the dividing when he pulled the race card. People do not like to be threatened and that is what that does. It says, if you do not like me and I am AA, you are a racist. If you say a AA person did something idiotic, you are a racist. And THAT is what turns people off. It is when people show that they are different. Obama changed from a Presidential candidate who happened to be black to a Black candidate appealing for the AA vote. He chose the road and it will lead to defeat in November if he is the Democratic candidate.  

    Obama's campaign new what they were doing (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    They had to take away all the AA vote from the Clintons.  The only way to do that was to set them up as racist.  Shut them out and they did it with PR brilliance.  Of course the MSM helped cause it was stirring the pot.  This is why I will always have problems respecting anything about Obama.  I always knew he was a politician, but this is so dastardly.  Frankly, beyond Rove.

    And the PC-guilt white vote (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:27:46 AM EST
    As somebody posted before the prime-target of the Obama's camp race baiting was the guilt-ridden whites. It might drive up the AA vote from 75% to 90% but that difference is only few percent in most states.

    This is enough to game the system in the Democratic primary but they have to come up with new tricks for the general.


    I have to take exception with one thing BTD (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    I have seen this elsewhere too, but in your analysis you mention the "crushing defeat" in NC. I know I am partisan, but why is it that a 10 point win in a state like PA where demographics were more balanced was never addressed as a crushing defeat, yet a 14 point win in a state with 35% of the vote effectively locked up before we start is?

    I think BTD is snarking. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:09:38 AM EST
    She got about the same percentage of the white vote she has been getting in other primaries.

    Darn my snark detector failures! (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    They have been plaguing me for months, and I have taken it to the dealer many times to get it fixed.

    Thanks, I guess from now on I'll need community based snark detection...


    they're offering courses on-line (none / 0) (#171)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    at  Portmanteau Prep



    Dem primary process (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    Designed to lose GE.  It's that simple.  A Democratic primary winner does not predict GE winner.  Penn said that and people laughed at him.  

    It seems to me that Appalachia (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:54:43 AM EST
    accentuates the problem. Hillary seems to run a few points better there with whites than elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, Suffolk says that John Edwards will still be on the ballot. That could potentially end up being a problem for Hillary at the margins.

    Applachia Virginia voted for Wilder (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    Applachia Virginia had no problem voting for African American Douglas Wilder in '89. Buchanan County, for example borders both West Virginia and Kentucky, is 97% white, and voted 90 percent to 9 percent for Clinton over Obama on February 12, but in 1989, it voted 59 percent to 41 percent for Wilder.  

    So, the notion that people are monolithically racist in Applachia and will not vote for Obama because of some sort of knee-jerk reaction to Obama's ethnicity is largely false.  


    I didn't say they were racists (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    I didn't mean to suggest that you were... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:29 AM EST
    I was just saying that the Obama spin that they are a bunch of racist hillbillies and therefore that is why Hillary does slightly better there with whites isn't really true.  She does better working class whites b/c the view Obama as an egghead elitist.

    like Jesse Jackson, Wilder was another AA (none / 0) (#144)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    candidate that stuck to issues and solutions - not Race.
    Obama purposely based his campaign on minimizing substance and pulling the Race Card to get the AA and younger vote by demonizing the Clintons.

    The results in... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:42 AM EST
    ...Ohio, Pennsylvannia, West Virginia*, Indiana and Missouri indicate that  The senior strategists in the Democratic party are prepared to run a General Election map that has never existed [as a success].

    A campaign map that has never delivered the Whitehouse to the Democrats and one that defies alomst all the geographical characteristics of previous winning General Election campaigns.

    The Rocky West is being exchanged for the Border South and foundry states. If it works it's genius. If it fails every one involved should be ferrted out of their borrows.

    I really hope the number crunchers actually figured this one out.


    Maybe not... (none / 0) (#16)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:12:58 AM EST
    Edward's stepping down from the race a long while back is common knowledge. However, the  interviews he held with the media last week may have some impact, not for people to vote for him directly, but for those who supported him to interpret his "Obama is probably the nominee" as a not too subtle signal to vote for O, and subtract votes that would potentially go to Hillary.
    I hope this is not so, let's keep our fingers crossed.

    I think that the margins are too high... (none / 0) (#2)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:56:49 AM EST
    I expect to see some of what we saw in Indiana -- far greater turnout among AA's than expected.  But non-AA turnout in Indiana was also extremely high, and I don't think we're going to see that in WV.

    So I'm saying Clinton +15 overall, but the exit polls are going to be devastating.

    It's Too Bad (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by BDB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    so few people in the blogosphere and democratic party can read exit polls.

    Obama should not be surprised (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:36:26 AM EST
    Obama has made Race, not issues and solutions, a central part of his campaign.
    Having voted for AAs for state, local, and federal offices because they were more knowledgeable and qualified than their white opponents - I was surprised when Obama rolled out Oprah and Michelle to tell AAs to vote for THE ONE - the black one.
    But he didn't stop there. The only way he could be assured of the AA vote was by manufacturing racist charges against the "first Black president" and his wife. And the media and Obama blogs happily obliged their Madison Avenue candidate by misconstruing Clinton remarks as "racist."

    After Obama lost TN on Super Tuesday by 14 pts and Hillary won 40% of the white vote, Obama had no Plan B to attract white voters.
    Instead, he began calling for Hillary to GET OUT and continued the Hillary-hate by "brushing her off" the bottom of his shoe to loud cheers from his audiences - while his surrogates and followers continued to "find" a racist motive behind every Clinton remark.

    In March, Obama was the first to admit he had a "white" problem - when he told his billionaire donors that working class Dems weren't voting for him because they're racist, clinging to their guns and religion.
    People don't like being called racists - especially behind their backs.
    Charges of racism are serious. False charges of racism to smear an opponent are deplorable.

    Obama purposely made Race, not issues and solutions, a central part of his campaign. And now his followers blame Hillary for citing polling data indicating working class whites seeking solutions for their economic problems aren't voting for him!

    Possibly they would have - if Obama had been more interested in offering solutions rather than casting himself as the Black candidate and "victim" in order to sow divisiveness.


    Obama has played the race card all along n/t (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:29 AM EST
    please explain what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:56 AM EST
    but the exit polls are going to be devastating.

    devastating in what way?


    3.3% of the population (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:03:25 AM EST
    Frankly, that's noise at the margin.

    Given the redstatesque nature of WV.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:24:05 AM EST
    I would say blacks will be approximately 15% of the voters. So of African Americans 15% + 30% (35% of white vote) =45%-55% margin for Clinton, which will be seen as better than expected for Obama.

    BTD Sez (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    it's 97% white.

    15% is way, way too high.

    Obama will be beaten by a very large margin.


    Blacks had 18% in Indiana (none / 0) (#54)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    primary, despite only having about nine percent in the overall population. OK, 15% is too high, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was 10%. In that case it would be more like 58-42.

    The 1.9 multiple in IN was the highest we've seen (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:41:48 AM EST
    In most states, the general rule this election is, depending on open vs closed nature of a primary AA turnout will roughly = 1.6 to 1.9X their percentage of the population as a whole. Indiana and SC were at the high end, and most clustered closer to the 1.6 range.  10% turnout assumes a 3X multiple which is absolutely off the charts and far and away the highest multiple we would have seen this entire primary cycle.  Is it within the realm of possibility that this happens?  Yes.  Is there any evidence from anywhere else that there is any likelihood that this will happen?  None.  For AA to make up 10% of the vote we will have to be seeing a very low turnout race, and until we can predict that with any degree of certainty, predictions of AA making up 10% of the vote are not that reasonable.

    15% in Indiana (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:45:03 AM EST
    where A-As were 11% of the total population.

    17% (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:48:12 AM EST
    Which was an astounding number. It explained the closeness of the race.

    I frankly hope you're right (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:07:59 AM EST
    but I can't see how that's possible. The 2004 election brought out a record number of voters. . .and W still won.

    You've got to actually be competitive before extreme turnout matters. And remember, their voters turnout too.


    New Voter Id Requirements In MO (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

    The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

    Sponsors of the amendment -- which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum -- say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship. NY Times

    Another effort to disenfranchise voters. IIRC this impacts older AA  voters who were born in rural areas.


    After Wisconsin (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by andrys on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:34:17 AM EST
    ...the Wright and other news hit.  That kind of news means nothing to most Dems but it does to conservatives from both parties and to many moderates too.

      Obama will be hit pretty hard by the GOP as to details of many things that don't matter to Dems but which matter a LOT to the general electorate so it will be a tossup since the hapless McCain is looking pretty weak too. McCain is leaning conservative and then some these days probably because there's a threat of a Ron Paul movement to deny McCain the nomination.

      The current delegate count is based on pre-Wright and other news.  Wisconsin seems to have been the high point, but there is also a heavy anti-woman vote there too.  

      Unhappily, Dems have the best chances to win if Obama chooses her as VP (if he wins the nomination) and she agrees.  They get to keep probably 85% of their voters and that is a huge number vs the GOP.

      Either alone loses probably 40% of the others' supporters because feelings are high in a way I have not seen before, with supporters.

      It's ironic also that (from what I read) Teddy Kennedy, who seems to feel Clinton is not showing grace, went TO the convention 750 delegates short of the incumbent President's count, challenging him.  Carter did lose, but Teddy Kennedy is not one to talk.


    record turnout in 2004 (none / 0) (#137)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    didn't help.

    Also Gore won popular vote in 2000 didn't help.

    What you need to do it TAKE AWAY Reagan Dems form them.  Also known as Clinton Republicans.

    The Black vote will be located mainly in the esouth and will be insignificant.


    Obama is a centrist - not a progressive (none / 0) (#154)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:24:21 AM EST
    Do you really think the Washington establishment supporting him needed a newly elected senator to "change Washington"???

    the most astonishing thing about that number... (none / 0) (#156)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    is that AA's made up only 7% of the electorate in the 2004 election.

    AND turnout was extremely high among whites -- there were only 969,000+ votes for Kerry in Indiana in 2004...but 1,275,000 people voted in the Democratic primary.  

    Based on 7% in 2004, and 17% in the Dem Primary, that means that 173K aas voted in the 2004 GE, and 217K voted in the primary -- THAT is extraordinary turnout... but it was matched by non-aa democratic voters...


    Not to be a nit, but (none / 0) (#75)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:47:12 AM EST
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:48:49 AM EST
    A-a turnout in Indiana was amazing.

    I'm a little wrong... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:59:32 AM EST
    According to the exit poll, it was 17% African American turnout in the primary and according to the U.S. Census, A-As make up 8.9% of the overall population.

    I take the under.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    There are roughly 650,000 registered Democrats and 150,000 Independents in West Virginia- compared to 350,000 registered Republicans.  

    West Virginia has 1.8 million residents, 65% of which are currently registered to vote.  Assuming the 3.3% of African Americans are registered at the same rate at the general population, that means there are roughly 39,000 registered African American voters in West Virginia.  327,000 Voters turned out for Kerry in 2004 in West Virginia.  Assume 60% of those turn out, that's roughly a turnout of 200,000 voters.  For African Americans to turn represent 15% turnout, you'd have to assume turnout of 75% among African Americans in WV and turnout among eligible white voters of 22%.  I am going on record right now as saying that turnout differential is not going to happen.


    Considering WV is an open primary... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    (BTW -- Kentucky and Oregon are closed)

    ...I would say the turn out will be about  400,000 overall or about 50% statewide.  I think turnout among African Americans will be 75% or  

    40K African Americans + 126K from whites = 166K

    Or about a 55-42 margin for Clinton, with Ewards getting 3%.


    75% Turnout of AA does not = 40K votes (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    There are 60,000 total African Americans in West Virginia.  That's total, registered voters, unregistered voters, those under 18, total population. 21% of the state is under 18.  If that rate is the same among AA, there are 47,000 adult AA in West Virginia.  82% of adults in WV are registered to vote.  If 82% of adult AA in WV are registered, that's 39,000 voters.  40K votes out of 39,000 registered AA in WV would be quite an accomplishment for Obama.

    Doh! You're right! (none / 0) (#112)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    But never underestimate the creativity of the Obama campaign!

    the question to me is will (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    axelrod continue with the dog whisles in the general to keep the aa vote in their corner. the simple answer is yes. i hope i am wrong.

    Not completely open, FYI. (none / 0) (#131)
    by liminal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    Only Democrats and Independents can vote.  Republicans may not vote in the Democratic primary in WV.

    I thought they could, but voters have to vote (none / 0) (#134)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:15:40 AM EST
    in one or the other -- b/c there is a dem ballot and a GOP ballot.  Is that correct?

    Nope. (none / 0) (#174)
    by liminal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    There are three ballots:

    1. GOP;
    2. Dem;
    3. Non-partisan (ex: school board, perhaps some local ballot measures).

    Voters automatically get the ballot for the party in which they are registered.  Independents may chose to ask for either a GOP or Democratic ballot, but only independents.  There won't be a cross-over GOP vote.

    To be fair, there are many Republican-leaning folks who are registered Democrats and/or Independents, because many races are decided in the Democratic primary, effectively.  The GOP has a hard time recruiting candidates for quite a number of positions, and there are plenty of conservative Democrats for the Chamber of Commerce to support as things stand.

    Still, those 300,000 registered Republicans may NOT participate in the state primary.


    Oh gosh - (none / 0) (#177)
    by liminal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:42:16 AM EST
    I said state, I meant Democratic.  

    This is also the first year that Independents can participate in the Democratic primary.  At polling places, they have to specifically request a Democratic ballot.  Poll workers are not allowed to offer it to them or to ask them if they want a GOP or Democratic ballot.  


    The AA population of WV is (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    3.56%. And the percentage of people with a bachelor's degree is 15.3%. So that pretty much eliminates Obama as a viable candidate in WV since his two main demographics are pretty much not there. Even if ALL of the people with degrees and all the AAs vote for him, that only gets him 18.86% of the vote. Now I am sure that some people who are not black and who do not have degrees will vote for him. But I doubt it will get his demographic above 20%. Obama is toast, totally toast in WV. And KY has an AA demographic of 7.8%. More toast. And given that the Obama campaign is rapidly alienating so many people, he will be lucky to get much out of the rest of the primaries. Women are ANGRY, really angry at the sexist tone his campaign, and followers, have taken. And we have a right to be. And we vote. I guess Obama should think about things like that before he opens his big mouth and tosses more of us under the bus. But, if you are the One, I guess you don't have to pay attention to things like people's feelings or their votes. Obama is going to have his head handed to him on a platter in November, IF he gets the nomination.

    No possible way (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    Jeez, (none / 0) (#113)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    the numbers do not support your statement:  African Americans 15% + 30% (35% of white vote) =45%-55% margin for Clinton5% black
    How does 3.3% of the pop. turn into 15%? NOT HERE, NOT NOW, NO HOW!

    Jesse Jackson (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:58:33 AM EST
    I read somewhere that Jesse Jackson got almost exactly the same share of the white vote in W.VA. as he did nationally.  But I read it in a piece that didn't cite underlying data.  Does anyone know if this is true?  Because it would certainly seem to indicate that W. Virginians are more racist than the rest of America.

    Not (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sas on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:07:58 AM EST
    racist, just more pro -Hillary.  And not prone to accept BS.

    "not racist, just more pro-Hillary" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:14:37 AM EST
    the told me on teevee it was the same thing??

    here, here!! (none / 0) (#27)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:21 AM EST
    Those former campaigns did not address WVa.'s issues and left it for insignificant and abandonned it. That's why the voters turned to and gave their nod to the Republicans.
    Hillary definitely can, and is noticeably, turn that around for the Dems.

    the big difference (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    Jesse Jackson stuck to issues and solutions, not Race.
    A year ago he was on Tavis Smiley and was very disappointed in Obama's "Obama Girl" campaign and other gimmicks.
    Jackson listed a whole range of some very tough issues he had tackled in '84 and '88 that other candidates wouldn't confront - and basically said there was "no beef" coming from Obama.

    Interesting that Obama's followers claimed his lack of substance and focus on the issues was to dissuade him being labeled the "black candidate."
    But Obama has clearly made Race the focus of his campaign - not solutions.

    The working class seeks solutions - and Jesse Jackson delivered.


    In retrospect Jackson (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    would have done better than Dukakis.

    Not sure about that... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:00:34 AM EST
    I do know that there is a high level of mistrust when it comes to "Government."

    BTD (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    I don't think quoting caucuses really help make your case w/r/t the white vote.

    No... (none / 0) (#19)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:14:05 AM EST
    but at least he has the courage to talk about it.

    He will probably be accused of race-baiting or racism or divisiveness or some such nonsense over at the Daily Obama.



    I thought, Joe (none / 0) (#26)
    by kmblue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    You concluded that already!

    Was (none / 0) (#32)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:20:36 AM EST
    it WV or Arkansas in the bad joke where there were so many unidentified murder victims as to no dental records and the DNA is all the same.

    Plenty of jokes like that. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by daria g on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    Unfortunately.  I used to tell them myself when I was a kid, I'm afraid to say, because when growing up in a poor Appalachian county you still had to find someplace else to diss, so, look over the state border.  Like anywhere else they could sure use more economic opportunities and universal health care..

    robert kennedy went to appalachia (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by hellothere on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    to campaign and see for himself. and obama? enough said!

    It seems to me the party is (none / 0) (#179)
    by Oldman Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    divided regarding this historic choice between a woman and a black candidate. Duh who doesn't know that the contest has blatant predjudices at work. This Democratic race for the most part is about gender versus race, and the entitlement attitude each group is ready to exercise. I don't know the numbers regarding who is winning the demographics when you subtract Women from Hillary's total and the Black vote from Obama's totals but for all you statisticians it would be an interesting exercise.
    The problem is this, the Democratic party will win if it comes together and they will lose if the divisions remain.
    Hillary does not win WV in th GE, her record on gun control will be resurfaced and scare all the gun owners to the republicans. I am a life long democrat who has lived in PA and currently in IN. The Bass Pro crowd will tag her as a femme Nazi (actually what the saleman behind the counter said to me unsolicited when I purchased my last pistol in March '08) and of course Obama is a muslim according to him. The remarks may have not remained with me if there weren't 6 other white men standing ther shaking their heads in agreement. In PA a democrat never wins without a great turnout in Philadelphia of the black vote, period. So Hillary would lose PA which is really a red state, if she can't mend fences and get at least 80% of the black vote. In Indiana if it goes Blue in the GE conditions will have to be so dire that it won't matter who is the candidate. So again these primary races really don't perdict the GE and what everyone who wants to claim electability needs to solve is the rift in the party, woman vs black because both constituencies will need to be present or we will sing hail to the chief John McCain.

    wait a moment (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    Obama's knee deep in the gun restrictions in Illinois and Chicago.

    His associates have been instrumental in running gun merchants out of Chicago.

    At this point he's also got the fresh--clingy comments.


    I find it ironic (none / 0) (#192)
    by independent thinker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:08:12 AM EST
    that after spending months saying that Obama's wins in states that have tilted "red" in the last few presidential elections, the Clinton campaign now touts two such states--WV and KY--as very important signs of her electability.

    maybe you will get it (none / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    after the election.

    What's also ironic is Obama (none / 0) (#204)
    by Radix on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    saying he has a 50 state strategy and and not bothering with these states.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Per CNN's exits Obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    According to CNN's exits, Obama had difficulty in CA....  52% of the CA vote was white.

    White 18-29    6%
    White 30-44    11%
    White 45-59    17%
    White 60 and Older    18%

    Obama won  18-29 63/32
    Obama won  30-44 53/42
    Obama lost 45-59 45/49
    Obama lost 60+  35/49

    I think when that is multiplied out, they tied at 24% of total CA vote.

    Also, John Edwards speaks out.

    ARG (none / 0) (#210)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:18:20 PM EST
    I know they are usually an outlier, but ARG has Clinton up by 43.


    "Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 57% to 27% among men (43% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 72% to 20%.

    Clinton leads 70% to 19% among white voters (93% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 91% to 3% among African American voters (5% of likely Democratic primary voters).

    Clinton leads 61% to 27% among voters age 18 to 49 (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 72% to 19% among voters age 50 and older.

    13% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 45% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

    For details, click on the R or D for each state in the column on the left under 2008 Presidential Polls."