Official West Virginia Democratic Primary Discussion Thread...

[J. J.]

Demographics are horrific.

[J. J.]

Exit polls suggest that if Clinton is the nominee, 19% of her vote will vote for McCain; while if Obama is the nominee, 13% of his vote will vote for McCain

Remember WV is not so much home to the 'Reagan Democrat', it is home to the 'Bush Democrat'

Quite true. Mondale actually performed well in WV compared to most states.

Carter won the state in 1980.

Obama needs to get any closeted super delegates out soon.

[J. J.]

Exit polls suggest that if Clinton is the nominee, 19% of her vote will vote for McCain; while if Obama is the nominee, 13% of his vote will vote for McCain

Remember WV is not so much home to the 'Reagan Democrat', it is home to the 'Bush Democrat'

Quite true. Mondale actually performed well in WV compared to most states.

Carter won the state in 1980.

Obama needs to get any closeted super delegates out soon.

Considering that in the last week alone he got 27 of them (overall, the week was +27 Obama, net +1 Clinton), he shouldn't have much difficulty.

He needs more, soon.

If I were a super delegate, undecided or leaning to one or the other, I'd be trying to figure out which candidate would do the least damage to the Party in the Fall.

The best thing to preserve party unity into the convention would be for about 150 super delegates to move to Obama.  That might not be the best move for the Party in the Fall.

[J. J.]

Donna Brazille on CNN, perpetuating the myth that every state except FL & MI complied with the DNC calendar rules....no mention of IA & NH's rulebreaking.

IA & NH both applied for waivers to the DNC and received them.

Yes, but only *after* they'd already moved their contests.  They moved to Jan. 3rd and Jan. 8th respectively, which was earlier than the DNC allowed (the original DNC calendar said they could go on Jan. 14th and Jan. 22nd respectively), and said "We don't care what the DNC says, we're going to vote on Jan. 3 and 8 no matter what."  The DNC gave them a pass in December 2007, after their dates were already locked in.

Formally the DNC didn't give them a pass until December, but informally, both states had consulted with Dean before making their moves and it was widely understood that they'd be given the pass. Florida was the first to make a move on May 3, and, in order to forestall a chaotic rush, the Rules Committee decided to set an example with Florida.

When Michigan followed in August, they had no choice but to do the same. New Hampshire's constitution requires that its primary be at least one week before any other primary. Therefore they legally had no choice but to move 1 week prior to Michigan to Jan. 8. After consultations with the DNC both NH and IA were allowed to move.

I used to think Dean behaved unfairly, but now I'm not so sure. Which state moved first-- New Hampshire or Michigan?

It's not a question of "fairness" but of raw power, including seating all those that Clinton would like to.  She might have the votes on 5/20, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, to do that.  It's not pretty, but it is within the rules.  You could see Obama's totals drop by up to 120 delegates.

That is one of the reasons I really think those super delegates need to step up relatively soon.

Edit:  The meeting is 5/31/08.

[J. J.]

Such BS from Wolfson.

What's he saying like?

"West Virginia is a key swing state, yadayadayada, West Virginia is super important is key, yaddyaydyada, West Virginia is absolutley necessary"

Its like he's saying in regards to Michigan and Florida that Obama didn't have his name on the ballot, so that's his tough luck.  Mind you, the ONLY reason the Clinton supporters are advocating so strongly for Michigan and Florida is because it would help HER.  If they were favored to Obama, they would not be advocating it this loudly and the opposite may have been true.

I'm not question Clinton's motives.  She's a ruthless politician.

I'm suggesting that she can do it, within the rules.

Edwards at 7% Obama at 28%, Clinton at 65% at 41%

[J. J.]

Delegate Count as of 10:30 pm EDT (9:30 pm CDT).

Obama:  1599 pledged delegates.  282 superdelegates.  1,881 total delegates.  -144 from 2,025.

Clinton:  1,440 pledged delegates.  273 superdelegates.  1,713 total delegate.  -312 from 2,025 and -168 behind Obama.

West Virginia pledged delegates:  16 for Clinton, 7 for Obama with 5 outstanding for a total of 28 pledged delegates.

Serious question.  MI currently lists 80 delegates for Clinton and 55 "undecided."  What is the minimum number Obama can get of those "undecided" delegates?

[J. J.]

if i were a democrat, id be worried.  this shows obama has a very serious problem with the white working class.

forget wv.  how the hell is he going to win pa or oh or even va if he cant do better among the blue collars?

i dont say this as a hack.  if i had to vote today. id probably vote obama over mccain.

I think it's pretty ridiculous that whites are only "working class" if they live in Appalachia. Yes, Clinton is winning white Appalachians. But Obama is winning white "working class" voters as well, in the Plains states, in the Mountain West, and states like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.

And he hasn't wone of those since March.

[J. J.]

if i were a democrat, id be worried.  this shows obama has a very serious problem with the white working class.

forget wv.  how the hell is he going to win pa or oh or even va if he cant do better among the blue collars?

i dont say this as a hack.  if i had to vote today. id probably vote obama over mccain.

I think it's pretty ridiculous that whites are only "working class" if they live in Appalachia. Yes, Clinton is winning white Appalachians. But Obama is winning white "working class" voters as well, in the Plains states, in the Mountain West, and states like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.

And he hasn't wone of those since March.

Because none have voted since then. He will in June though.

Oh, please.  You've had that in OH, PA, IN and WV. 

The question will be, how many "working class" voters will there be in the rest.

As I've said, the demographics are horrid.

[J. J.]

if i were a democrat, id be worried.  this shows obama has a very serious problem with the white working class.

forget wv.  how the hell is he going to win pa or oh or even va if he cant do better among the blue collars?

i dont say this as a hack.  if i had to vote today. id probably vote obama over mccain.

I think it's pretty ridiculous that whites are only "working class" if they live in Appalachia. Yes, Clinton is winning white Appalachians. But Obama is winning white "working class" voters as well, in the Plains states, in the Mountain West, and states like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.

And he hasn't wone of those since March.

Because none have voted since then. He will in June though.

Oh, please.  You've had that in OH, PA, IN and WV. 

The question will be, how many "working class" voters will there be in the rest.

As I've said, the demographics are horrid.

I'm talking about South Dakota and Montana. Which are plains states, unlike the ones you listed.

I'm talking about the white "working class" which was the subject of the post.

I don't think this is over (largely because Clinton is tenacious, and has the morals of a Styrofoam cup). 

[J. J.]

And what are Montana and South Dakota? Latte liberal land?

Montana Democrats, pretty much; there the ties are more Pacific Northwest.  It also isn't a "plains state." 

SD, is a bit different, but it isn't white "working class," either.

[J. J.]

Montana and South Dakota will be interesting, actually.

Yes they will be provided they campaign there. I am guessing they will but OR could change that.

Hillary Clinton leaving after Oregon?  You're not being serious, are you?

I was just hoping LOL. But what if she loses by 15 points? Is it onwards to lose in Montana and South Dakota? Or is she going to become puerto rican for a while?

She may lose Oregon by 15 points, but she'll probably win Kentucky by 30.

I don't know what's going to happen in Montana and South Dakota and neither do you... (especially Montana) 

Besides, if there's one thing we've learned about this campaign, it's that the right wing was wrong about many things Clinton and right about many things Clinton.  One of the things they were right on was that this woman will never quit or give in.  Ever.  Same with her husband.

It's next to impossible for Clinton to win it clean, but it is possible for her to win it.

[J. J.]

Has anyone been paying attention to what superdelegates are doing the last few days at all?

Yes, maybe the fifty that Obama promised in March might be out by now.

As a group, they have yet to step in (which tells you more about the super delegates than the race).

Really, to end this, there needs to be an en masse movement in the triple digits to one candidate or the other.  For whatever reason, they are not doing that, as of yet.

[J. J.]

What did 7% of people vote for? The numbers don't add up.

Edwards.

[J. J.]

Has anyone been paying attention to what superdelegates are doing the last few days at all?

Yes, maybe the fifty that Obama promised in March might be out by now.

As a group, they have yet to step in (which tells you more about the super delegates than the race).

Really, to end this, there needs to be an en masse movement in the triple digits to one candidate or the other.  For whatever reason, they are not doing that, as of yet.

Triple digits? Obama needs only about 50-60. Hillary meanwhile needs close to 200, and more than 80% of the remaining total.

If all the remaining superdelegates slowly trickle in at a 50/50 split (very generous to Hillary), Obama wins it.

I repeat, either candidate needs triple digits to end this:

Need to Nominate   2,026.0
B Obama                        1,878.5

A slow trickle doesn't end it and that's without FL/MI; it has to be dramatic.  A 26 delegate gain , per week, will end it in mid-June.  There has to be a dramatic shift to Obama, or he has to win net gains on the ground. 

What's his ground game been like from April (Wright/bitter) to today, a slight net loss for Obama.

[J. J.]

Has anyone been paying attention to what superdelegates are doing the last few days at all?

Yes, maybe the fifty that Obama promised in March might be out by now.

As a group, they have yet to step in (which tells you more about the super delegates than the race).

Really, to end this, there needs to be an en masse movement in the triple digits to one candidate or the other.  For whatever reason, they are not doing that, as of yet.

Triple digits? Obama needs only about 50-60. Hillary meanwhile needs close to 200, and more than 80% of the remaining total.

If all the remaining superdelegates slowly trickle in at a 50/50 split (very generous to Hillary), Obama wins it.

I repeat, either candidate needs triple digits to end this:

Need to Nominate   2,026.0
B Obama                        1,878.5

A slow trickle doesn't end it and that's without FL/MI; it has to be dramatic.  A 26 delegate gain , per week, will end it in mid-June.  There has to be a dramatic shift to Obama, or he has to win net gains on the ground. 

What's his ground game been like from April (Wright/bitter) to today, a slight net loss for Obama.

He only needs about 50-60 after adding all the delegates he'll win in the remaining primaries.

Then it doesn't end it, now, but sometime in early to mid June, at the earliest.  That assumes that he gains and that those 50-60 will move then.  They don't really have to move until August, late August.

Right now, either candidate would need triple digits to end this.