Predict AR & KY

[mondale84]

John Wolfe leads 184 votes to Obama's 128 in Arkansas.

[mondale84]

Obama now up 62-38 in Arkansas

[Bacon King]

results page, for the curious: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AR/39376/82642/en/summary.html

[mondale84]

John Wolfe in Arkansas is slightly under-performing "uncommitted" in Kentucky. Obama leading 59-41% with 3/75 counties reporting.

Obama now leads 71-29 according to Politico.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Where are you getting these results? I'd like to see bandit pop in here and explain how Kentucky's beloved Obama is doing so poorly to this uncommitted guy.

Uh, Obama is beating "uncommitted" handily.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Also, 69% of precincts reporting right now in KY, and Obama's beating "uncommitted" 59-41%. Whew, that sure is a whole bunch of racists... #sarcasm

If you have a better reason for it I'd sure love to hear it.

I'd say the dire state of eastern Kentucky accounts for half of it.

People like Oakvale are the main reason I left the Democratic Party years ago. If you're not a supporter of President Obama, it can't be because of his record (or lack thereof), or because of the pathetic economic situation of Appalachian Kentucky...it  must be because they all hate black people. Such narrow thinking from such a progressive person, I presume.

I don't believe you were ever actually a Democrat, of course, but the idea that Obama's melanin content might be responsible for his unusally poor performance in traditionally Democratic white, working-class areas is hardly radical.

The usual response is something like "no, he's a poor cultural fit!", which is true, but is a bit of a crummy argument when you consider that John Kerry, the effete liberal aristocrat, won >70% landslides in the same states in '04.

EDIT: Also, no-one's ever actually said that strawman argument you posted. For the record.

Not that I feel the need to prove myself to you, but here: https://twitter.com/#!/Brand_Allen/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F75rs27 look at the fridge and read my 7 month old tweet. Still don't believe me? Still feel real smart right now?

Your Kerry-Obama comparison ignores the fact that Kerry wasn't running on a near unanimously disappointing economic record...Kerry had a blank slate and he was the only official candidate in the race when WV and KY voted. Nice try though. But even if they are racist, they're still your Democrats

Edited to note that the link doesnt work unless you're logged into twitter.

So why did Obama collapse in parts of WV and KY in 2008, when it was a bad economy under Republicans?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To say that there aren't "cultural differences" that influenced Obama's performance in Appalachia and the rest of the upper South... you really have to be delusional.

 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

RON PAUL WON A COUNTY!

[cinyc]

RON PAUL WON A COUNTY!

No he didn't.  The AP's tally doesn't match the Kentucky Elections website.  According to the latter, Romney received 227 votes in Trigg County, not 27.  Which makes more sense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Really all this does is show up the absurdity of what passes for a party system in the U.S and its attached institutions (namely primaries). Democrat = what they are, but Obama does not speak to them, has never tried and wouldn't even know how to. Most are probably only voting in the primary for local races and the like.

Not to say that there's no bigotry attached, oh, no, no. But things are often a little more complicated than they seem. In any event, people who see themselves as being on the left ought not forget that we're dealing with a despised and socially excluded minority group here (even if that isn't exactly how they would see themselves). Which doesn't mean that it's wrong to find this sort of display ugly, but it does mean that...

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

RON PAUL WON A COUNTY!

No he didn't.  The AP's tally doesn't match the Kentucky Elections website.  According to the latter, Romney received 227 votes in Trigg County, not 27.  Which makes more sense.

Thanks for ruining my day.

[tmthforu94]

Final tally in Kentucky:
Obama: 57.9%
Uncommitted: 42.1%

....sheesh, who knew there were so many racists in the Democratic party?


Edited to add that w/ 8.4% of precincts reporting in Arkansas, Obama's ahead 61-39%.

Let's see how Bandit tries to spin this...Obama is apparently going to be competing in Kentucky this fall, yet he can't even get 60% of Democrats to show faith in him?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Let's see how Bandit tries to spin this...

Didn't I already explain it here?

[tmthforu94]

Let's see how Bandit tries to spin this...

Didn't I already explain it here?

Beating "uncommitted" with under 60% of the vote is absolutely terrible and embarassing, especially for an incumbent President. With Republicans coming out for Romney, as well as a majority of Independents and a good chunk of Democrats, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in Kentucky.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Beating "uncommitted" with under 60% of the vote is absolutely terrible and embarassing, especially for an incumbent President.

1) Hardly anyone voted.

2) "Uncommitted" is better than the clowns who ran against Obama in other states.

3) Obama did much better than he did in the 2008 primary.

[The Professor]

Let's see how Bandit tries to spin this...

Didn't I already explain it here?

Beating "uncommitted" with under 60% of the vote is absolutely terrible and embarassing, especially for an incumbent President. With Republicans coming out for Romney, as well as a majority of Independents and a good chunk of Democrats, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in Kentucky.

Uncommitted got 40% in Michigan in 2008. Whether you want to admit it or not, Uncommitted is a strong candidate and a force to be reckoned with.

[tmthforu94]

Beating "uncommitted" with under 60% of the vote is absolutely terrible and embarassing, especially for an incumbent President.

1) Hardly anyone voted.

2) "Uncommitted" is better than the clowns who ran against Obama in other states.

3) Obama did much better than he did in the 2008 primary.

Uncommitted isn't even a person.

Of course Obama did better - there's a huge difference between "Uncommitted" and a former first lady and Senator who has Southern roots. This primary was basically Kentucky Democrats having the option of giving Obama a "stamp of approval" and saying he deserves reelection. When less than 60% of Democrats are showing confidence in him, well, you have a problem.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Uncommitted isn't even a person.

That makes uncommitted so popular. For an identified politician to have a 45% approval rating these days is incredibly high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In November, Romney can forget Elliott County and Jefferson too, so let's get that cleared up right now.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Not to defend Bandit here... because suggest Obama has a chance in KY is ... yeah...

But the fact that a) this is an uncontested primary with no consequences b) turnout is VERY low c) Obama has always been a bad cultural fit (on quite a few fronts) with this area and it's not that surprising...d ) combine all of that you end up with only the really hardcore pro and con coming out... the big whack in the middle who don't really care stayed home.

It's silly to try to spin it too positively, equally, it's silly to make this out to more than it is.

[Taft]

I think what is interesting to look at, not only here but also in NC, LA, and OK (thus far) and to a lesser extent in MO, AR, and TN (where there were smaller not-Obama shares, but they were at least noticeable) is the urban/rural split that piles up in a lot of cases.  Once you get outside of Tulsa, Little Rock, and Louisville, you have Obama struggling to win these states (all but 950-odd of Obama's margin in KY can be found in Jefferson County; excluding Pulaski County, he's got a 9000 vote margin in AR; excluding the counties with Tulsa and Oklahoma City, IIRC Obama either falls under 50% in OK comes very close to doing so...and most of those votes against him in LA weren't cast in Orleans Parish, either).

Also, the "nobody voted" point is partly applicable in OK and LA, but in AR, KY, NC, and WV there were "live" primaries on the ballot in much of the state as well.  Turnout wasn't great, but I would argue that it was at least somewhat representative of the party electorate because of that.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

For the record, Obama handily won Campbell County in today's primary.

[Tender Branson]

The AP is a bit further:

AR: 59-41 Obama

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2012/by_state/AR_President_0522.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS

KY: 58-42 Obama

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2012/by_state/KY_President_0522.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS

[rbt48]

I find it interesting that Romney did just about equally well in Kentucky and Arkansas (67 to 68%).  It seems like he was equally strong in urban and rural parts of Arkansas, while in Kentucky he was strongest in the urban areas and was held in the 50s percent wise in some rural counties.

[Taft]

Ok, so that's the Cincy suburbs.  And the margin I see there is 22%...slightly ahead of the statewide margin, but really only by a little bit.  It's interesting, though, because that suggests that he was well ahead in major cities (or heavily black areas, I suspect), on par in suburbs, and behind in rural areas.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Ok, so that's the Cincy suburbs.  And the margin I see there is 22%...slightly ahead of the statewide margin, but really only by a little bit.  It's interesting, though, because that suggests that he was well ahead in major cities (or heavily black areas, I suspect), on par in suburbs, and behind in rural areas.

Campbell County is also 97% white.

On the other hand, "uncommitted" won some rural precincts in Campbell County (which probably all have about 3 Democrats each).