<p>Hillary made the point that no Democratic candidate has been elected president without winning West Virginia since 1916. In fact, if Gore had won West Virginia in 2000 as Bill Clinton had in 1992 and 1996, WVs 5 electoral votes would have enabled him to beat Bush 271 to 266 rather than the other way around, even without Florida which was lost as a result of the incompetently designed butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County. Clinton is indeed a goner, but so will be Obama in November if he cannot figure out how to overcome his problem with white rural voters in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. Well, all you Hillary haters, brace yourself for four years of McCain.</p>
<p>
I think she’s a brilliant woman, and was embarassed that she was trying to extrapolate off a meaningless statistic.</p>
<p>On the other hand she did come across as far more gracious than before.</p>
<p>A sobering article.
[Racist</a> Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html]Racist”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html)</p>
<p>Could Obama have done anything to win over this type of voter short of not being black?</p>
<p>“I think she’s a brilliant woman, and was embarassed that she was trying to extrapolate off a meaningless statistic.”</p>
<p>I’m curious if that is a meaningless statistic or if WV represents the base of voters that need to be persuaded to vote for the Democratic nominee in order to win the general election. I’ve heard that statistic repeated often and wondered if there was any basis to it.</p>
<p>I think the statistic is meaningful if and as it represents a true divide, confirmed elsewhere, which it seems to: Obama does not appeal to <em>traditional</em> Dems; Clinton does (or more so).</p>
<p>However, I thought the statistic was in regard to the general election, not the primary. Could be wrong about that.</p>
<p>I heard one commentator on this morning’s news suggest that it makes no sense that there is such a big divide between the two candidates because their poltical ideology is so similar. Good point. He stated that it may suggest that the folks in West Virginia may be more racist than residents of other states.</p>
<p>Why would this be so?</p>
<p>I still don’t get how the uneducated poor white folks “relate” to Hillary. What could she possibly have in common with them ?</p>
<p>An answer to your question Marite is a resounding, NO. Its West Virginia.</p>
<p>I have no problem with white people but I think a lot of people are jaded into how generally racist a lot of the white population still is. That article was of no surprise to me at all. I just know they haven’t reported on it, because it would be seen as “whining” and slightly “divisive”.</p>
<p>The simple truth is that there are MILLIONS of white people that the second they saw Obama’s face they decided that they weren’t going to vote for him. It wouldn’t matter if he was Jesus Christ himself and had saved the World from all of its problems. </p>
<p>Black is Black, and don’t fool yourself into thinking that it won’t be his BIGGEST hurdle in the general election.</p>
<p>I particularly liked the line “hang that darky from a tree”. While I couldn’t help but burst into laughter, this is what we’re dealing with folks.</p>
<p>I believe you’re right, that the stat is in regard to the general election, epiphany. I think there is a question as to whether Obama can carry WV. The exit polling showed that there may be a fair number of WV democrats who will defect to McCain or opt out of voting if Obama in the democratic candidate.</p>
<p>"Clinton is indeed a goner, but so will be Obama in November if he cannot figure out how to overcome his problem with white rural voters in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. "</p>
<p>We Shall Overcome? How does he overcome being black? I think that’s the real problem.</p>
<p>“I still don’t get how the uneducated poor white folks “relate” to Hillary. What could she possibly have in common with them?”</p>
<p>If the article is indicative of a general pattern, then apparently what she has in common with them is that she’s white and the other guy’s not. I don’t know whether that’s the story outside of W.Va., though.</p>
<p>1sokkermom, the lack of significant policy differences between the candidates actually supports large vote differentials in a primary. When the candidates are really different on the issues, voters are more likely to vote rationally, which means (in America) you’ll get a fairly even split of votes. When there are few if any significant differentiating factors between the candidates then superficial factors can drive lots of votes, since no one is really voting for or against anything significant. In a vote between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Tweedledum can win in a landslide if people like his haircut. (“Vote for me so I can take your kid’s money and give it to Leona Helmsley’s dog” isn’t the kind of platform which wins votes, even if it is the essence of the Republican economic platform. “Vote for me because I can play the part of a guy you’d like to have a beer with” sells so much better.) So in “silly season” elections people vote for goofy stuff. If that means, in W.Va, that an ignorant old woman is voting against Obama “because he’s Muslim” then that kind of factor will dominate. </p>
<p>Hopefully in the general election actual issues will play at least a small part.</p>
<p>How quickly folks forget that Obama won the rural white vote in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Idaho, Washington, and, likely Iowa, and will almost certainly win it in Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana.</p>
<p>But he’s not running against Hillary in the fall. He’s running against Mr. “I don’t understand economics - it hurts my elderly brain too much.”</p>
<p>I agree with kluge. Voters don’t see major policy differences between Hillary and Obama so they rely on the intangibles, namely race and personality.</p>
<p>So far I have made more than six hundred phone calls in various states
for Obama. Exactly one person used the n-word, and that was in a lame
humorous way. No, I wasn’t calling West Virginia.</p>
<p>Do they even have phones in West Virginia?</p>
<p>Just kidding…;)</p>
<p>Has anybody thought that average people think he is a neo-lib, self centered elitist with empty words. May be they are afraid of the prospect of latte crowd in his administration (every problem can be fixed by throwing money at it). May be they are afraid of the company he keeps (Wright, Kennedy, Kerry, moveon.org, Hanoi Jane, Moore…). </p>
<p>Average people like me are show me people we are middle of the road. May be little bit left of the center, but not way left. His empty oratory had no meaning. I am on a fixed income and I don’t relish the propspect of 18% interest (Carter) and inflation. Historically, Dem. congress and Dem. President are the worst for economy and stock market. </p>
<p>(don’t point me to his web site and say that both Hillary and him have similar positions)</p>
<p>I think that anyone who still uses the term “Hanoi Jane” really isn’t so middle of the road.</p>
<p>What I found depressing about the WaPo article as well as the OP’s statement about the “white votes” is the casting of the issue in stark racial terms. </p>
<p>One could say that candidate X needs to court older voters. This would suggest that candidate X does not sufficiently understand their needs, which are quite different from those of younger voters. One could say that candidate Y has done a lousy job relating to rural voters. Again, this is a matter of policy. Or one could say that candidate Z has failed to attract low-income voters. But has any presidential candidate before Obama been criticized for failing to attract white voters? Why does the race of the voters matter unless the race of the candidate does?
I can see that it could be a positive, other things being equal. But a categorical negative as in “I’ll never vote for a black man” is something totally different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Substitute “she” for “he” and it could just as well apply to the female candidate you support, unless the $30 gas tax holiday makes her the opposite of a neo-lib (I assume you mean it in the economic sense?)</p>
<p>Simba, you absolutely make no sense whatsoever. I frankly think that anyone that refers to him as a “self-centered elitist” is an idiot. You can call him many things, but definitely not an elitist.</p>
<p>He makes the least out of ALL the candidates by FAR and hes had the hardest and POOREST childhood out of all of them too. How can you call someone that graduated from Harvard Law School and went on to become a Community Organizer instead of pursuing the basically guaranteed future millions in a Law Firm “self-centered” or an “elitist”. The other candidates have up to 40X more worth than he does.</p>
<p>I just think that people are not used to seeing a well-educated black man which exudes confidence, so they label him as arrogant and elitist.</p>
<p>Simba your claims are very unsubstantiated. Where do you get this stuff?</p>