home

Kentucky Results Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It seems clear Clinton will win a huge victory in Kentucky.

Results here. On TV, they have it 149-17 for Clinton. That's 86-10. I expect Obama to close the gap from there.

Wolfson on CNN. Talking Michigan and Florida.

The Ky Sec. of State is ahead of the AP on the results. KY Sec of State has it Clinton 74k to Obama's 65k. Now 78k-66k Clinton. 8.2% lead. Most of Louisville is in. Now 82k-68k, Clinton by 9. again, most of Louisville is in.

John Edwards getting 1.5% of the vote.

< How Not To Win Over Voters | Clinton Wins Kentucky By At Least 30 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Kentucky Results Thread | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I guess KY is failing DHinMI's test. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    How can they be punished for this?

    Make them go last in line (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    so that they are the 58th of Obama's states.

    [ Parent ]
    They have to sleep (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    in the little tent

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't is strange (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM EST
    That the number of Hillary supporters who say they won't support Obama in the fall continues to grow with each election? According to CBS "According to CBS News early exit polling, in Kentucky, eight in ten Clinton voters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama was the Democratic nominee." That's 80% for those of you keeping score at home.  Now, I know Obama supporters will say stupid stuff, like "well, we won't win Kentucky or WV anyway" or "Sure, they say that now, but they'll come around in the fall."

    I don't think they understand.  I think they sorely underestimate how angry they've made people.  Don't rely on the comments here - go to local papers online and read blog comments or letters to the Editor.

    It's mind boggling.

    I completely agree (5.00 / 14) (#29)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    (yes, I know--shocking)

    They really have no idea how furious we are--and not just at Obama and the media, but Howard Dean and the DNC, who have let the sexism run like blood from a wound.  And then they insult us again by not only dismissing our anger, but assuming we'll come around "when we have time to cool off."

    There ain't enough air conditioning in the world.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:57:27 PM EST
    How can you be angry when your candidate is winning 304% of the vote?

    Next you'll want equal pay or something.  Sheesh!

    [ Parent ]

    OT remark about DNC (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    Rec'd survey from DNC wanting me to 'represent' my hometown.  Whee!  A chance to say my piece.  Which I did, about FL/MI and also that I this day end my association with the party.  Funny thing:  I got to begin my rant with "Another DNC goof?"  The survey pages were blank!

    Oh, nice letter from Hillary included asking me to send contribution to DNC.  Sorry, Hillary, all my contributions go to you.

    [ Parent ]

    I just got a DNC (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    survey in the mail and used the opportunity to write a long letter to Howard Dean expressing my disappointment in their handling of the primary, neglect of two key states and their rush to crown Obama.  Also to say I was not contributing to the DNC as all my money was going to the Clinton campaign (plus Ms. Brazile doesn't want my vote anyway as I'm the wrong demographic). It was very satisfying!!  I highly recommend it if one of their surveys comes your way.  

    [ Parent ]
    I just get a Sharpie (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    and write "COUNT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN" across the entire page, then send it back and make them pay for the stamp.

    [ Parent ]
    And that helps elect Democrats how exactly? (none / 0) (#151)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:34:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It helps by letting the DNC know our (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    opinions and what is important to us.

    [ Parent ]
    By making them spend money you intentionally (none / 0) (#159)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    left off an envelope?

    Karl Rove wouldn't be able to "help" Democrats any more than that.

    Sure, a postage stamp is nothing....until you multiply it by how ever many times.

    It just seems kind of childish, that's all.  Biting off your nose to spite your face.

    I understand your anguish and think you should be able to express that.  I'd just prefer you did it in a manner that doesn't take away from electing more "good" Democrats to office, that's all.

    [ Parent ]

    What you are forgetting is that just because (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:47:00 PM EST
    we don't give to the DNC doesn't mean we don't support our local candidates. We do, by donating directly to the campaign rather than giving to the DNC so they can give it to whomever they please. And since the funding deal, it seems to be whomever Obama pleases. I do not give money so that a candidate that I DO NOT support can have the say over how my money is spent and to whom it is given. So, until the DNC decides that my voice, and others like me, has some validity in the political process, they aren't getting a damn dime. I do support my local Dems, I do not support the DNC. One of my contributions locally was to the candidate for sheriff. I like to support my local sheriff. Heh. So should you. The DNC doesn't give a rat's patoot if my local candidates, or state candidates get funded. They only care about Obama. So let them fund him themselves. With help from his groupies, who are getting fewer and fewer. At least the ones with money to give are. The effect of Kool-Aid only lasts for a while, then most people wake up and smell the coffee.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not just about electing Democrats. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but gender equality is a much more important issue to me than electing Democrats - especially if the Democrat being lauded as the second coming of our lord and savior jesus christ is a sexist.  

    I will be switching my registration to Indy in Sept.  Take that, DNC.  

    Hell hath no fury.

    [ Parent ]

    But isn't this.... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:32:22 PM EST
    ...the exact same attitude that Clinton supporters have about Obama's constituency?  Particularly African-Americans?  The attitude seems to essentially be, "Where else can they go?"

    I'm certainly not saying every single Clinton supporter feels this way.  But the attitude seems to be that women Clinton voters have more options than African-American Obama voters, so women Clinton voters should have greater consideration when it comes to picking the nominee.  I haven't spoken to or read from one single African-American who says they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is nominated.  Not one.  But there certainly seem to be a lot of McCain fans here.

    [ Parent ]

    It is really strange too (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:11 PM EST
    that KY (8 ec votes) & WV (5 ec votes) are written off as not important when Bill Clinton carried both of them, and the focus tonight by the msm is the "crucial" vote in Oregon (7 ec votes) that went blue for Clinton, Gore & Kerry.

    [ Parent ]
    Dollats, Dinero, Euros (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    Fundraising.

    Anymore, when I go What The ???, I just think money, donations, campaign cash, PACs, lobbyists...

    And it all becomes so much easier to understand.

    Why schmooze the elites when you could get more votes schmoozing the common men and women?  Money.  

    [ Parent ]

    Lovely..... (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by April on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:22 PM EST
    thought!

    What is better than a group of angry women, angry black men?


    [ Parent ]

    That's the unity spirit! (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:08:34 PM EST
    Raising the specter of "angry black men" holds no weight with me -- I'm from NOLA, so Obama is not the first well-educated, smart black man I've ever seen -- NOLA is full of such men -- I've lived next door to them, worked with them, voted for them, argued cases before them -- and I know for a fact that the stereotype you are trying to use here to instill fear is simply that -- a stereotype, and one of the lowest sort, I might add.

    [ Parent ]
    Angry white women don't hold (none / 0) (#174)
    by April on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    weight with me.

    [ Parent ]
    angry, black, female swans? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:06:20 PM EST
    they look nice, but they know how to nibble.

    [ Parent ]
    iT is indeed mind-boggling (none / 0) (#28)
    by Curious on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    ..that anyone should prefer McCain to either of the two Democratic candidates

    [ Parent ]
    You see, it's not really that (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:16 PM EST
    surprising, if you note that experience voters choose Hillary by massive margins. These people are not convinced Obama is qualified or experienced enough for the job.

    [ Parent ]
    I should have finished my thought (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    It's mind boggling that the DNC and supers aren't looking at this trend and taking it seriously.

    Obama can't win with 1/2 the Democratic party voters alone.

    And what does it say (or what SHOULD it say) to the powers that be that half of the party they claim to represent won't vote for the presumptuous nominee, and half of that number would be perfectly comfortable voting for a Republican after the 8 horrid years under Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    OH yes, I agree with you there. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:50:05 PM EST
    McCain is a very formidable candidate, and innovative enough to interest even me---for example with his proposal to institute the practice of the "PM's taking questions" here.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: I should have finished my thought (none / 0) (#141)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    Obama can't win with 1/2 the Democratic party voters alone.

    I definitely agree.  Neither, of course, can Clinton.  That's why acrimonious accusations and declarations that unless the candidate of choice is nominated, one will vote for McCain or stay home, help no one but the Republican thugs who have had their way with this country since 2001 and who need to be taught a lesson.

    Of course, my saying this will only earn me denunciations of being a sexist, or accusations that I drink latte, which is apparently some kind of grave insult around here.

    I just wish people on both sides (repeat: both sides) would calm down and stop making threats that if they don't get their way they'll help keep the war criminals in power.  The notion that John McCain would be preferably to either Clinton or Obama is delusional.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess you don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    These are not "idle threats" (at least with respect to Clinton supporters).

    I can only speak for myself -

    I.will.never.vote.for.Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Please (none / 0) (#169)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    Please explain how John McCain, who wants to attack Iran, occupy Iraq forever, give corporations even more tax breaks while the deficit is staggeringly high, wants to nominate pro-life judges, and has no interest in increasing access to health care, would make a better president than Barack Obama, who hews to roughly 95% of Hillary Clinton's positions.  And don't tell me his resume is thin, don't tell me they were her positions first, don't tell me you find his perceived sexism insulting.  I'm talking side-by-side, issue-by-issue, McCain vs. Obama's stated positions, assuming Obama is the nominee.  How is McCain better?  This is a common sentiment I've heard here and I can't see any basis for it except anger over not getting your candidate.  I'm not trying to be a jerk here.  This is a sincere question.  How can you pick a Republican warmonger, after eight years of Republican warmongering, over a Democrat?  That's insane to me.

    [ Parent ]
    What does that mean? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:59 PM EST
    The experience voters.....Are you talking about Jimi Hendrix's old band?

    [ Parent ]
    Voters who think that (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:56:26 PM EST
    someone running for President of the United States of America should know that they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan, for example, are "experienced voters." Voters who can see that someone who votes for the Bush/Cheney energy bill is not the green candidate that he pretends to be now in another example of an "experienced voter." Someone who sees that a guy who blames his "staff" for major clusterf***s (such as NAFTA talks, missing papers from his time in the IL senate and questionnaires) is not responsible enough to be President is an example of an "experienced voter." As a final example, a person who recognizes that a guy who doesn't bother actually going to states where he has little chance of winning isn't courageous enough to be President is an "experienced voter."

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM EST

    Precisely.  And Obama mocked McCain for not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni.  Obama's a hypocrite.  Bigtime!

    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:23:47 PM EST
    While it is helpful to know that the dominant languages of Afghanistan are Dari and Pashto, it isn't really an essential fact as far as establishing foreign policy is concerned.  On the other hand, not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni Iraqis, or not even knowing that there is different sects within Islam as Bush didn't know, is a major problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama had responsibility for a Foreign Affairs (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    subcommittee which covered NATO involvement in Afghanistan. Surely, if he had held committee hearings, he might have known the language situation in Afghanistat?

    I know the language of Afghanistan is not Arabic.

    Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]

    No, he does not. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    The Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs does not have primary jurisdiction over the war in Afghanistan.  As far as I know, it's the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and then this subcommittee in a distant third.

    [ Parent ]
    Please forgive me for being snark. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST
    I was kind of having fun.

    I like Hillary.  I'll vote for her if she wins.  

    But to suggest that John McCain as President is better than Obama.....That just doesn't seem plausible.

    I kind of like women being able to control their own childbearing.  I kind of like quaint notions like the Bill of Rights.  I am scared to death of a Supreme Court packed with Roberts & Aliotos.

    That means more to me than the differences between Hillary and Barack.

    [ Parent ]

    Except for the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    Roe is already dead if any state challenges it with the court we already have. Furthermore, I don't trust Obama on that issue, because he said that pro-choicers just don't "understand the wrenching moral issue" that abortion is. (Yeah, I'm never letting that one go). Plus, he had to be talked out of voting for Roberts for godssake. I'm not saying I'm voting for McCain, but I am saying scare tactics are not going to "make" me vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#146)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    ...that Obama needs to have his feet held to the fire to keep him firmly pro-choice, particularly when it comes to judicial nominations.  Clinton is pretty obviously a stronger pro-choice candidate.  I don't think Obama is secretly pro-life, though.

    [ Parent ]
    And how to you plan to do that? (none / 0) (#154)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    "hold his feet to the fire" I mean? Especially with a Dem. majority Congress. No, I'd rather put my money on the one with the strong record.

    [ Parent ]
    How you hold any politicians feet to the fire? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    I don't understand this question.  Are you saying that Clinton, if elected, would never ever deviate from what you personally want her to do, and if she does, well, there's nothing to be done?  All politicians have to be pressured to do the right thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama supporting Roberts (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST
    until someone told him not to, must have been really upsetting for you.

    [ Parent ]
    Then the Dem congress (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by hookfan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    needs to do its job. The evidence on Obama protecting any of those values is ambiguous at best.

    [ Parent ]
    Sadly, Obama's courting anti-choice RW support (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    Obama is on the record of praising an anti-choice right wing ringer on the SCOTUS. He's bluntly asked his supporters to stop funding independent groups that protect women's right to choose.

    Obama has made it clear that he will not liberalize the courts.

    A strong congress is what will matter here. In that respect, a McCain presidency is no different than an Obama one.

    Team Obama's attempt to guilt and blame Clinton supporters for the damage Obama has done to women's constitutional protection and will continue to do in his -- I hope brief -- political career is one reason I will not support these sleazy and sexist ploys.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is going the same way as JFK. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by AX10 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    Kennedy put his friend Byron White on the USSC.  Even though he leaned to the right, he did it.
    The USSC argument does not hold up well with an Obama v. McCain contest.

    [ Parent ]
    Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Nike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    seems to me like a red herring. If this were important, then Obama would have put some effort into understanding the values or just securing the respect of women voters. Frankly, I do not trust him to safeguard Roe v. Wade, particularly since I understand his probable first SCJ pick is a so-called liberal "strict-constructionist" who seems perhaps to feel that that decision was an improper one. Ferraro is right to say that caring about the concerns of women and families cannot be a single issue. Obama certainly does not have a good track record on accountability on any issue, political or personal, so I would have a hard time supporting with any confidence that he ever means what he says especially with respect to women.

    [ Parent ]
    a sense of betrayal and attemtps to (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:43 PM EST
    oust many voters has resulted in this feeling. i am surprised that you are surprised. the shame of it is the dnc won't be surprised and doesn't seem to care.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm shocked! (none / 0) (#48)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST
    I agree with you, but I'm still shocked to see this post.

    [ Parent ]
    Ideology.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by solon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    Focusing on political ideology would help to explain this result. In some states, Democrats may be more politically and socially conservative than Democrats in traditional "blue states."

    If you believe that Senator Clinton moved slightly to Senator Obama's right on certain issues (e.g. Gas Tax) since the beginning of March, this would help to explain why she is appealing to these voters and soundly beating him in these states. The consequence of this move will be a loss in Oregon.

    [ Parent ]

    Huckabee (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    is running neck and neck with uncommitted. ;-)

    I noticed that... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    and that Ron Paul is getting more votes than Hackabee!

    LOL!

    [ Parent ]

    Wolf BLitzer just called Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    a neutral SD!  yuck

    Brazile herself says that she is (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:58 PM EST
    "undeclared" but decided, IIRC.
    She is given credit for a neutrality she would blush to proclaim herself.

    [ Parent ]
    Argh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    Wolf just identified Donna Brazile as a neutral commenter who is also a SD.

    and I am a dancing monkey (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    What did he say about FL and MI?  Is the tone shifting about how important they are now that Clinton is raging back, or are they all about the O?

    [ Parent ]
    they are all about Kennedy right (none / 0) (#38)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    now

    [ Parent ]
    Not to be crass (none / 0) (#64)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:51:36 PM EST
    But do you think this might take some of the shine off Obama's proclamation tonight?

    [ Parent ]
    Banana anyone? (none / 0) (#47)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    Hee!  Nothing yet on tonight's events or MI/FL from the panel.  Just some lovely comments about Ted Kennedy from one and all.  And I mean that sincerely.  Even that Republican strategist was quite complimentary.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST
    she did just say some lovely things about the Kennedys and her experience working with the Senator on making MLKJr Day a holiday.  So I must give her some credit tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    The holiday (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:09 PM EST
    that McCain voted against, lest we forget.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw McCain grovel to an AA audience (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    a month or so ago for that, and I mean really an abject apology, admission of wrongdoing, etc. -- and saying he tried to make up for it even a little bit by pushing the holiday in his state.

    I give him credit for that, going in front of an AA audience to say how much he had learned from his mistake, unquote.  And they appreciated it.

    [ Parent ]

    James Carville was trashed nonstop by certain (none / 0) (#103)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    bloggers for years now ... oh, the complaints ...

    Donna Brazile must do the right thing!

    [ Parent ]

    Fox hasn't called the race (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:39 PM EST
    but is predicting Hillary will win KY by 30%.

    Bill Kristol just pointed out that it's unheard of for a presumptive nominee to get walloped in late primaries as Obama did in WV and probably will in KY.  He said the Dems can shrug it off if they want to, but he thinks it's significant.

    Why is it that conservative pundits make more sense than liberal ones these days?

    Polls close at 7 (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    Chill. It will be called EXACTLY at 7.

    [ Parent ]
    cuz' you aren't REALLY a Democrat :P (none / 0) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    Just kidding,don't hit me. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, I may not be (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    after this primary season.  =)

    [ Parent ]
    Historic race (none / 0) (#107)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:35 PM EST
    But I think it would be a bit presumptuous for someone to be called the "presumptive nominee" while someone else is still in the race.

     Similar issues with respect to Huckabee and Paul winning nearly 30% of the Pennsylvania primary.  I don't recall that happening in a Republican race in recent memory, not to a nominee facing no challengers.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Bill Kristol (none / 0) (#150)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:34:34 PM EST
    ...has nothing but the best of intentions for the Democratic Party, of course.  He's really just trying to help us find our best candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Would they vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    Fox:

    Just 33% of Clinton voters said they would vote for Obama.  (I would like to know what Clinton voters say in OR, but I suppose they don't ask those questions in their phone polls?)

    Clinton v McCain:  77% would vote Clinton 16% M, 5% stay home.

    Obama v McCain: 50% would vote Obama, 32% for M, 15% stay home.

    51/45 right now with 7% in.

    Discussion: never has a pres nom lost a state by 40 pts, nor what is happening in KY.

    I think Olberman laid waste to the (none / 0) (#57)
    by lorelynn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    "never has a presidential candidate" meme last night - he pointed out that McCain lost several races by that much.

    [ Parent ]
    after he was the nom? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:51:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    after he was the nominee? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    What races has McCain lost by that much this late in the game?

    [ Parent ]
    Kind of a meaningless distinction (none / 0) (#152)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:36:08 PM EST
    ...since Obama has gone out of his way to repeat that whatever lead he feels he has, he does not consider himself the nominee yet.

    The Tim Russerts of the world are a different story.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    Olbermann must have read Greenwald or something.  Pointing out that Romney won 90% of the vote in Utah after the other candidates decided not to contest it is rather off-point, frankly.

    [ Parent ]
    When did McCain lose by 40 (none / 0) (#65)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not sure KO correct, after McCain presumptive nom (none / 0) (#113)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    Link to NYTimes primary/caucus results, with percentages.

    [ Parent ]
    GO HILLARY! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by snucky on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    my guess hillary will win 65% to 29% in kentucky.  

    I'm hoping for 40% again. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    That would certainly send a message.


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton needs to win KY by triple digits or fold (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    WOW! Kentucky's more of stubbornly and typically problematic chick state than even I anticipated!

    I demand that its name be changed to Barbietucky.

    triple digits??? LOL (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:51:12 PM EST
    Well, in terms of absolute numbers I think she will manage that.

    [ Parent ]
    Chick State (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    Oh, that is priceless.  My first hearty laugh all day.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Beats Skippertucky! (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    I love your comment, but now I never will be able to say Kentucky again without giggling.  You're bad.:-)

    [ Parent ]
    Toobin, says Hillary is exactly right that (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Teresa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    there has been sexism in this campaign. Gloria doesn't know what she's talking about.

    Senior Cackologist Borger fomented it ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    ... when expertly slamming women who respond to gratuitous sexist attacks and cascading criticisms about her cackle, cleavage and nutcracking ways as "playing the gender card."

    Hey, she stepped into the ring, won't take a dive and worst of all: punches back. (Plays the Punch Card?)

    We can trust Borger's view on this. She's a woman, tethered to Chick Brain: She Who Must Be Obeyed and who scrambles breathlessly back to the mainstream media to report.

    Oh, and Obama booster Donna Brazile assures everyone that the media is neither RACIST nor sexist.

    Racist? Good grief they've thrown a force field around Sen. Obama and attack anyone who's not supporting him as racist, as if he's entitled to 100% support -- or there's something 'wrong' with the voters! That's somewhat different than up front sexism in their coverage of Sen. Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Gloria Borger (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:55:15 PM EST
    feels that a woman knows sexism when she sees it but feels this 'isn't the right time' for Hillary to bring it up because she's the Iron Lady and can't talk about how she's been a victim.

    Donna Brazile tries to bring the unity pony in for a ride by discussing the historic nature of the campaign and downplaying the animosity.

    Jeffrey Toobin thinks Hillary Clinton is DEAD RIGHT. Cites a cartoon using the b-word to refer to Hillary.  Have my babies, Jeff.

    Alex the Republican Strategist Extraordinaire talks about Hillary being DEAD WRONG since she is abrasive and has perfected victimhood until you get close enough so that she can knife you in the ribs. The minute that Hillary is trapped in a corner, she plays the victim.

    Gloria jumps in to battle Alex.  Every woman in America understands Hillary's point that women are treated differently.

    This panel discussion is surreal.

    Good for Jeff (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:56:14 PM EST
    I always liked him, but I've given up on CNN lately.

    [ Parent ]
    I watch it (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    so you won't have to.  Although I may bail for Fox soon because I can deal with their issues much better since they dislike the candidates equally.

    [ Parent ]
    I had to leave CNN when Russert (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:05:20 PM EST
    came on and clicked right past MSNBlahSee to Fox -- and it actually is refreshing.  I know they have their Republican reasons, but they're really excited about this underdog campaign of Clinton's!

    [ Parent ]
    That was funny. Gloria said she didn't see it (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Teresa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    until that guy gave her a perfect example of it! Then, she came to her senses a bit.

    [ Parent ]
    Toobin said something nice about Hillary? (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    I'm stunned....

    [ Parent ]
    Of course not. Toobin was talking (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    about all those other people in the media.

    They all always talk about "teh media" as if they get their paychecks by working at WalMart or something.

    [ Parent ]

    isn't that the same thing (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    KO said when the "monster" slur came out--that people really felt that way, so what could you do about it?

    I am glad Toobin is speaking the truth about the sexism.  I loved his OJ book, and the SCOTUS one was very interesting, but he's disappointed me a lot of election nights lately.

    [ Parent ]

    Gloria is right (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    HRC couldn't bring it up. If she says anything, she gets accused of "playing the victim."

    This was Obama's job. He should have defended her -- for the sake of justice, for the sake of unity, for the sake of truth.

    Now is too late.

    [ Parent ]

    why is it ok for Obama to play the victim? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by nellre on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    It seems the Obama campaign has been the one to try to win sympathy because of racism in America.


    [ Parent ]
    "The whiness factor" is being noticed (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    as Howard Kurtz today quotes Hot Air about Obama putting his spouse out on the campaign trail but then calling for her to not be treated as a public figure -- how dare they videotape her!

    Hot Air's Ed Morrissey:

    "If Obama doesn't want his wife to receive criticism, then he shouldn't use her as a surrogate on the campaign trail. Whatever she says on the stump at campaign events is fair game for criticism, just as it has been with Bill Clinton. Obama's camp has unloaded on the former President for statements he made about Hillary's loss in South Carolina and several other incidents in which they believe Bill [Clinton] played the race card to explain Obama's success. Bill's not running for anything this year, but he has made himself a public figure in this primary race, and his statements are also legitimate targets for attack.

    "The whininess factor has become a real problem for Obama. Presumably, we'd like a President who doesn't play a perpetual victim on the national stage. What happens when he has to tangle with Congress over policy, or more to the point, when he has to represent America on the world stage? If he can't deal with legitimate political criticism now, what will we get for a response when Obama runs the federal government?"



    [ Parent ]
    I honestly (none / 0) (#155)
    by pantsuit chic on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:41:04 PM EST
    Could not believe what I was seeing.

    [ Parent ]
    CNN calls it for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:00:34 PM EST


    CNN Projects 30pt Kentucky win! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EST


    CNN projection (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by delacarpa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:18:24 PM EST
    Somebody said Obama would close the gap in Kentucky and he isn't, not after spending once again at most at a  3-1 on ads, boots on the ground,  Hope the Supers are getting the message that Obama can win some big cities, split the suburbia area votes and wins almost every county in rural areas.

    [ Parent ]
    Cnn Projection (none / 0) (#161)
    by delacarpa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    oooooooops didn't proof read. What I wanted to say is the opposite he can't win the rural areas, nor all of the suburbia areas. The Supers need to take note on this.

    Sorry

    [ Parent ]

    Fox calls it for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    says exits polls show she will win the state 2-1. She wons because this state is "tailor made" for Hillary because it is full of white, rural, poor, religious people! Yet, they then turn around to show she beats Obama in the college degree voters as well. Ha! Guess KY doesn't really count.

    but they are hicks (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    with college degrees

    [ Parent ]
    An Example of Alex Castellanos's Work (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:05:05 PM EST
    on behalf of Jesse Helms.  Lee Atwater would be proud.  See here.  The sad thing is that wasn't the most offensive ad Helms ran.  

    Which is why I can't take the claims of racism coming from the Obama campaign towards the Clintons seriously.  I lived through Helms-Gantt, that was racist campaigning.

    Donna Brazile must have got the message (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:07:49 PM EST
    last week, she is being more respectful of CLinton and not acting like an Obama cheerleader, at least not yet.

    be NICE! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:11:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Fox is hammering Obama's weakness (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    among working-class voters.  Juan Williams says you can't avoid this pattern if you're looking at the picture, and women voters are getting turned off by Obama.

    See - fair and balanced!  I bet they're not talking about this on CNN or MSNBC.

    definitely not, so keep telling us (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    what they are saying over there!

    [ Parent ]
    Will do! (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    Once again, Kristol is reiterating that it's very troublesome that the presumptive nominee is losing primaries by 30-40 point margins.

    Somebody else - can't remember who - said that the exit polls saying 50% of Clinton voters won't vote for Obama in November is also a huge warning sign.  He said that even if only 20% go through with their threat, it could spell the difference between victory and loss.  All too obvious and all too rarely pointed out by most of the MSM.

    [ Parent ]

    John King says Obama will be (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:14:32 PM EST
    just short of the 1627 number after KY, so he can't claim anything yet, will have to wait until after OR.

    there will be a backlash (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by nellre on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    It'll bump HRC in all the polls.

    149-17 (none / 0) (#1)
    by CytoEric on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    What does that mean?  I'm confused...

    just the votes in so far (none / 0) (#2)
    by tandem5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    raw vote totals for Clinton and Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    so far

    [ Parent ]
    Me too. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    Too many to be delegates.  Too many to be counties.

    ???

    [ Parent ]

    She Is Now Over 170,000 Votes Ahead Of (none / 0) (#170)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    obama....hope she makes it over 200,000!

    [ Parent ]
    SHE DID!!! (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton      D     385,407     65.2%    
    Barack Obama     D     180,453     30.5%

    with 85.8 of the precincts reporting. She is hammering him. He has only won two counties, Jefferson and Fayette.

    [ Parent ]

    8 of 3545 reporting (none / 0) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton D 1,448 77.8%
    Barack Obama D 320 17.2%
    "UNCOMMITTED" D 59 3.2%
    John Edwards D 35 1.9%

    LINK

    Uncommitted? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Emma on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    Can anybody explain why there is a choice for "Uncommitted" on the ballots?  Is this a delegate thing -- "I want to send uncommitted delegates to the Convention"?

    Going to guess (none / 0) (#8)
    by cloudy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:27:16 PM EST
    these are the folks who leave it blank?  You need to win a minimum % of the votes to get delegates.  

    [ Parent ]
    It means (none / 0) (#66)
    by hlr on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:52:43 PM EST
    I hate 'em all!

    [ Parent ]
    Or I don't care, I'm American (none / 0) (#127)
    by Prabhata on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    I'm joining that group after the June election.  I'll be another independent who doesn't vote for any presidential candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    What is taking so long? (none / 0) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:30:19 PM EST
    The MSM should have called this already.

    I'm getting nervous...

    the polls don't close in KY for another (none / 0) (#12)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:31:13 PM EST
    30 minutes

    [ Parent ]
    Oh (none / 0) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    I saw several sites that said 6 pm Eastern.

    Thanks!

    [ Parent ]

    some polls are still open (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    7PM is when the last of them close I think . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#15)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    Louisville came in and Obama's numbers jumped.