Obama In Kentucky And West Virginia: Why Will He Lose?

May 12, 2008

Click to Read

Obama In Kentucky And West Virginia: Why Will He Lose? This weekend, Obama passed Clinton in the number of superdelegate endorsements, according to the Associated Press. And yet despite his status, Obama is no match for Sen. Clinton in Kentucky and West Virginia. In the few polls that have come out over the past few weeks, Clinton has maintained a huge 30-point margin in both states. Even surveys completed after her disappointing performances in Indiana and North Carolina show an electorate entirely unfazed.

Comments

39 Comments

UnDave35 5 years 1 week

I think Clinton should drop out because she can not get more delegates than Obama. I know it's close, but just like in the general election, 50.1% is still the victor.

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

I think all Republicans are well aware that McCain is still not receiving the full backing of his party. I think the difference is that McCain's supporters, like Clinton's supporters with her, don't tout him as someone who will "unite the whole country" and don't talk about how he has support in every group. Stating something that all people recognize is nothing revolutionary. However, many Obama supporters still say that he is the candidate who can easily bring the entire country together. I am just stating that it's not going to be as easy as many Obama supporters think, given that he still hasn't even united his own party. Both McCain and Obama would face the same uphill battle in uniting the country (the same goes for Clinton.)Also, I understand that Clinton and Obama have different strengths and where the rhetoric on each candidate comes from. I was just stating why I was specifically referring to Obama not being able to unite the party, rather than referring to Clinton.

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

I think all Republicans are well aware that McCain is still not receiving the full backing of his party. I think the difference is that McCain's supporters, like Clinton's supporters with her, don't tout him as someone who will "unite the whole country" and don't talk about how he has support in every group. Stating something that all people recognize is nothing revolutionary. However, many Obama supporters still say that he is the candidate who can easily bring the entire country together. I am just stating that it's not going to be as easy as many Obama supporters think, given that he still hasn't even united his own party. Both McCain and Obama would face the same uphill battle in uniting the country (the same goes for Clinton.) Also, I understand that Clinton and Obama have different strengths and where the rhetoric on each candidate comes from. I was just stating why I was specifically referring to Obama not being able to unite the party, rather than referring to Clinton.

Jillness 5 years 1 week

It should also be noted, for comparison's sake, that McCain is still not getting the full backing of his party yet, either. In the most recent primaries, McCain was only getting about 3/4 of the vote...and he has already hit the "magic" delegates number.In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

Jillness 5 years 1 week

It should also be noted, for comparison's sake, that McCain is still not getting the full backing of his party yet, either. In the most recent primaries, McCain was only getting about 3/4 of the vote...and he has already hit the "magic" delegates number. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%. On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%. Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

Jillness 5 years 1 week

"Hillary's supporters don't seem to go on and on as much about how she is so much of a unifer."Obama gets more of the independant vote than Hillary, perhaps that is where that comes from. Hillary is more of a "rally the base" kind of candidate. They do have different strengths. And Raci, skullduggery is not used near enough! Love it! More power too ya! ;)

Jillness 5 years 1 week

"Hillary's supporters don't seem to go on and on as much about how she is so much of a unifer." Obama gets more of the independant vote than Hillary, perhaps that is where that comes from. Hillary is more of a "rally the base" kind of candidate. They do have different strengths. And Raci, skullduggery is not used near enough! Love it! More power too ya! ;)

stephley 5 years 1 week

I think Hillary's supporters know they'd be in trouble if they called her a 'uniter'. Her strong suit has more to do with building consensus incrementally. Which does not look good on a little placard. People who already think like her will be drawn to her, but she's not naturally charismatic (I don't think) and has to work to bring others too her - that's not a bad thing, it's just not a 'sexy' candidate thing.

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

And I only bring up Obama because Hillary's supporters don't seem to go on and on as much about how she is so much of a unifier.

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

I don't think anyone is suggesting that thing won't change when one of the two candidates drops out, just that it won't be an automatic change.

Jillness 5 years 1 week

I do think that whoever the democratic nominee is, the party will unite in November more than they are right now. I don't think it is accurate to suggest that how things are now will not change when one of the 2 candidates drops out. Of course he won't bring everyone on to his team, but Hillary wouldn't get everyone on her team, either. I do think that the majority of democrats will be united in November.

Jillness 5 years 1 week

raciccarone 5 years 1 week

I think every argument for Hillary dropping out can be used for Obama to drop out just as easily. As for Hillary staying in for ego, I think that's nonsense and skullduggery! I really think she believes she's the best person for the job. That's no different from Obama.

stephley 5 years 1 week

Oy, I never get too close to anyone's fervent followers - I did think you meant rational observers.

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

Stephley, I think you must have just misunderstood what I was trying to say. I definitely wasn't referring to impartial commentators. I was referring to Obama supporters and saying I was questioning their claims. And believe me, I have heard quite a few Obama supporters say that "once he has the nomination" he will "bring the whole party together" and saying that Obama is a "great uniter" who will lead our country by building a "vast coalition."

harmonyfrance 5 years 1 week

The country is torn. YES he has the lead. YES he has a lot of influential people on his side...but when it comes to the PEOPLE the democrats are torn. They have a virtual tie. I still think that she has a valid argument for the bid. Of course I'm biased, but so is everyone when it comes to the candidate they support.

stephley 5 years 1 week

I've never heard that though I guess real Obama partisans might say it. I think anyone, especially an impartial commentator, would be dumb to say that. Obama started as a relative unknown - initially, he had to compete not only with Hillary but better known Democratic politicians; he's African American so no one knowing anything about this country could reasonably expect people to automatically follow him; the Rev. Wright issue has dogged him for almost two months. To say someone is capable of uniting the party is not the same as saying he's a miracle worker.

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

great a uniter (I am trying to type too quickly today!)

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

I'm not trying to discount what Obama has done, just saying that he is not as greata uniter as some (not even directed at anyone on here) would claim.

lilkimbo 5 years 1 week

Stephley, you and I must be talking to/listening to different people. I have heard plenty of people say that it will be so easy for Obama to unite his party and our country, and I'm just not seeing that.

Jillness 5 years 1 week

I don't think she should bow out, but Romney bowed out long before his time and it has helped the Republican party. Romney was a team player. "if Obama is as great at bringing people together as some claim, he would have been able to make people see past any lies or tactics that Clinton is using."I understand your point. However, I think that as a former President and First Lady team, the Clintons hold more credibility with voters than they would if they were just other politicians. You can't forget that they have a campaign force that has been around for over 12 years. You forge a lot of ties in 12 years! I think the fact that Obama has over come that to become the front runner says a lot for him. When a candidate has a trusted machine like the Clintons throw false mud at him, it sticks a little more. It greatly disappointed me to see the Clintons abuse their position as a former Presidental couple. When a former president lies, it allows more people to swallow it.

Jillness 5 years 1 week

I don't think she should bow out, but Romney bowed out long before his time and it has helped the Republican party. Romney was a team player. "if Obama is as great at bringing people together as some claim, he would have been able to make people see past any lies or tactics that Clinton is using." I understand your point. However, I think that as a former President and First Lady team, the Clintons hold more credibility with voters than they would if they were just other politicians. You can't forget that they have a campaign force that has been around for over 12 years. You forge a lot of ties in 12 years! I think the fact that Obama has over come that to become the front runner says a lot for him. When a candidate has a trusted machine like the Clintons throw false mud at him, it sticks a little more. It greatly disappointed me to see the Clintons abuse their position as a former Presidental couple. When a former president lies, it allows more people to swallow it.

stephley 5 years 1 week

I've never heard anyone say Obama was headed for an automatic victory - but I did hear plenty of commentators say even before the race started, that it was Clinton's to lose. I don't care much if Hillary stays in the race: it just solidifies my belief that her chief motivation for running is ego, not the good of the country or the good of the party. Ego's a factor for every candidate, but most can bow out when they see they're becoming devisive.

stephley 5 years 1 week

Link Love

39 Comments

You Might Also Like