Hillary Clinton experienced a better than expected election result in West Virginia last night. Most polling sources and pundits expected a 25-30 point victory in West Virginia, along with a pickup of around 100,000 popular votes. At the end of the night, however, Clinton won in resounding fashion picking up well over 140,000 popular votes in a 41 point victory.
More importantly, however, is a number the Obama campaign and many media outlets haven’t discussed: Clinton has now won the popular vote in 195 US Congressional Districts. That number is important because of the relative equality of each congressional district. This number is important because too date Barack Obama has only won the popular vote in 187 congressional districts. If you include Florida & Michigan’s 2.3 million voters who showed up in record numbers on Election Day despite being disenfranchised, the congressional district victories look like this:
Clinton – 227 Congressional Districts
Obama – 195 Congressional Districts
Throughout March and April we heard DNC leadership tell the superdelegates that they should follow the wish of the voters. However, since Obama’s North Carolina victory superdelegates have flocked to Obama, increased pressure on Clinton to stop her campaign, and in an increasing number of congressional districts ignored the direct vote of their constituents. As if the Democratic Delegate Distribution process was not flawed enough, now many House members have directly placed party politics above the wishes of the very people they represent.
West Virginia should also highlight a disturbing problem the Obama campaign has. West Virginia is a state made up of primarily white middle class and lower-middle class voters, the heart of the Democratic coalition. Obama, at a time that most media outlets have called the race over, actually performed worse than expected among these groups. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that Obama chose to ignore West Virginia, a clear message that he is not reaching out to this constituency.
No Democrat has won the Presidency without carrying West Virginia since 1916; and now it looks as though Obama has no chance of carrying the state in a general election. Why??? Only 36% of Clinton voters said that they would vote for Obama in a general election (his worst showing yet), and nearly 8% of WV voters cast ballots for John Edwards (a clear protest and message that they would not vote for Obama).
We can mull this over for hours, but I will leave my readers with just two thoughts:
In 1972, George McGovern built a coalition that was made up of African-American voters and Upper Class Democrats (today’s latte democrat). The Democratic leadership of the day expected the party to coalesce around McGovern in an election that they expected to win. I wonder how that turned out?
Since March 4th, Hillary Clinton has won Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas (I refuse to acknowledge the ridiculously disenfranchising caucus results), Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia. Obama has won Wyoming, Vermont, & North Carolina.
SUPPORT OBAMA TRUTH WEEK! E-Mail Link Below, and please remember to visit our advertisers.
Attn: News Editors, Book Publishers & Agents
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
BARRY OBAMA= NO JOB EXPERIENCE, NO LIFE EXPERIENCE, PLAGARIST, LIAR, ACTOR, ANTI WHITE, ANTI JEW, ANTI AMERICAN, MUSLIM CONNECTIONS, SNARLING WIFE, CORRUPT POLITICIAN WHO TOOK BRIBES FROM CRIMINALLY CHARGED REZKO, SUPPORTS FARRAKHAN WHO HATES EVERYBODY WHO IS NOT BLACK, SAT FOR 20 YRS IN REV WRIGHT'S CHURCH OF HATE, SUPPORTED BY MIDDLE EAST OIL MONEY......BUT, IF YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR HIM, BE MY GUEST.
OH I FORGOT, ALSO HATES HIS GRANDMOTHER AND EMBARASSED HER ON NATIONAL TV BY SAYING SHE HATED BLACKS AND WAS A TYPICAL WHITE PERSON............NOT MY KIND OF GUY, REALLY.
Ewww.... What am I doing on this blog? As a white, working-class woman of 60, I have to say - Get over it! Obama's going to be the candidate. You need to stop spouting this stuff about him, and do a little research. C'mon. You're just making all of us look ignorant!
to myrbailey
Your indicates bigotry, racism, misinformation, and anti-Muslim in its most pure essence.
Hillary’s Rules along with Carl Rove, Bill Oreilly, that stupid Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh (her new friends) repeatedly advocate Rev Wright, Rev Moses(pastor replacing Rev Wright),Bill Ayer, and Marxist leaning. Most of they said he’s unelectable (code word) don’t vote for the Black Man.
Don’t forget people like you usually are economically deprived; and ignorant;so it is easy with Hillary’s name recognition to peddle the prosperity of the 90’s.
However,the real hardships you people have are going to be exacerbated once you vote against your basic needs.
That is truly sad.
Next, factor in the cultural paranoia; an African American leading the nation is scary to some uneducated whites.
Isn’t it amazing how many uneducated/mis-informed people still think Barack is Muslim? So what.
myrbailey--you are a bit over the top in your comments.
Anon.#1 suggests "do a little research." I have. I made a file on each of the candidates. That is why I support Sen. Clinton. Sen. Obama's record simply does not hold up under scrutiny.
Anon. #2 refers to "Hillary's Rules"--the only rules I see her operate under are "work hard, presevere, listen and learn." Her mentions of Rev. Wright are very few--and only when questioned. It is the media that dragged that story on, and the Rev. himself. For me the problem is less in what Rev. Wright said, but in the progression of Obama's denials. First he wasn't there, then when it was shown that he had to have heard those or similar statements he denied the words but not the man, finally when the Rev. said Barack was taking a political stance, he denied the man. That's called fudging the truth/political expediency/or lying. Take your pick. The same progression can be seen in his words about Rezko, Ayers, etc. Again it's not about these men per se, but about Obama's changing stories.
About "voting against your basic needs"--another reason why Sen. Clinton will make a better president. Obama's health plan is inadequate; it will not work. (My grandchildren have health care thanks to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Kennedy.)Hillary has a grip on the economic situation and has listened to what people want and need. She knows how to get things done.
now about me--I have a Master's degree and an adequate income. Am I "scared of an African American leading the nation?" Hardly. I supported Jesse Jackson's candidacy. Don't sereotype and don't pigeonhole those who don't agree with you.
There is no room on this blog to turn this election into a racial issue. There are certainly racial overtones in this election that can be rationally discussed. Please don't turn this forum into a discussion of white vs. black. There is no room for that here, go troll somewhere else.
Excellent work! I really doubt that a single pundit has even thought about looking at the number of congressional districts each candidate has won. If so, I've never heard them talk about it. (Of course, they wouldn't want to say anything that would make their "inevitability" meme look bad). I would love to see their heads collectively explode when they see your numbers.
Another number I would add to the mix: since March 4th, Hillary has won 492,463 more votes than the Precious. So who really has the momentum?
Obama netted over 600,000 votes in Illinois.
Notice all the Obamabots go as "anonymous". great damage control guys and throw "racist" in there again. a little sensitive are we?
myrbailey- you go! :)
you speak the truth
signed anonymous
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=331c77bb-9591-422c-aa2b-11a741c6ebb9&p=2
put your glasses on and read this one, obamabots.
written by a smart black man from the carolinas and went to harvard and is an exec. you done any of that?
The DNC rule for awarding delegates weights states, counties and congressional districts by the support that the geographical areas give to Democrats in previous elections. So what does it mean when Obama has won less congressional districts but more delegates than Hillary? It means that Obama has won the areas that have given consistent support to Democrats, and Hillary has won the more Republican districts.
The Democratic Party set up the system to make sure that the best candidate for Democrats gets selected. They determine this through delegates, not the "popular vote", not by districts won. Obviously the delegates are what matter, according to the Democratic Party's rules. Obama will probably win the most delegates - and the nomination.
Obviously this blog is set up by a McCain supporter trying to pit Democrats against each other. DEMOCRATS: Do not listen, we will be united come November and deny Republicans the presidency.
myrbailey is hardly OTT. He types in CAPS is all. What he's written is definitely not OTT. But YOU - you wussy Dems, you Dems who can't win a two term election in 60 years more than once - you will continue to be timid, continue to be wussy - and continue to lose elections hand over fist. Hill and Bill are the ONLY Dems to win two terms since the second world war. And the 1990s were GOOD, you fools. Get over what? Get over trying to stop someone evil from hijacking the nomination, the election, the country, and democracy itself? Not quite, wusses. Instead YOU wake up out of your Kool-Aid enhanced dream before it is too late. Remember what your founding father Jefferson said about good people who don't stand up to evil: when they don't evil wins and it's a setback for everyone. Everyone on earth. Think about it and next time choose your words (and your thoughts and candidates) more wisely.
wellllll - Geraldine Ferraro told the truth and was blasted - what's "interesting" - obama's mom - the white woman - wasn't seen early on as his whole tactic was to run as a black man - he is bi-racial - now, as he fears losing white voters, we have mom in the news - and on a sunday news show, for the very first time, a black reporter referred to him as bi-racial - racism works both ways and this guy has played the race card as often as possible - but the bottom line is he is simply UNQUALIFIED - i don't care if's purple or green - he is not going to win because while he is a fabulous speaker he has absolutely no substance - and he is terribly naive - and yeah, that angry wife isn't helping either - she's an embarassment - the Dems should have won this election in a landslide but as usual, have shot themselves in the foot once again - It truly is time for a third party - what horrible choice are being presented to Americans - American politics is disgraceful
Check This Out From The Obamabot Above: Fact:
A chain e-mail widely reproduced on Web blogs says Obama authored 890 bills and co-sponsored nearly 1,100 more, and contrasts that output with the record of Clinton, noting she got 20 mostly inconsequential bills passed during her first seven years in the chamber. The numbers use data retrieved on the Library of Congress’ legislative search engine, Thomas (named for Thomas Jefferson and found here).
“An impressive record for someone who supposedly has no record, according to some who would prefer this comparison not be made public,” the e-mail reads, concluding, “He’s not just a talker. He’s a doer.”
A side-by-side tally of Clinton’s and Obama’s legislative output on Thomas shows Clinton has sponsored 635 bills and co-sponsored 2,441 more since she was elected in 2000, 54 of which became law. Obama has sponsored 272 and co-sponsored another 834 since he was elected in 2004, 16 of which became law.
So in an apples-to-apples comparison of bills written and co-sponsored, it's Clinton: 3,076; Obama: 1,106. Not quite the conclusion the e-mail sought to reach.
I'll leave that comment up for a few days, unbelievable and please don't click on the links mentioned above, who know where they will take you.
As for Eric Above,
You represent everything that is wrong with our political process. You cannot retort the fact that the Democratic Primary process is unfair, disenfranchising millions of voters across this nation, while being easily manipulated by those who understand the system. Instead you admit the unfairness of the system as though it is justified. Apparently I have been wrong, not all votes are equal, there are no shades of gray, you are either a republican or a democrat; and as a republican or democrat you should just shut up, sit down, abandon your values, your knowledge, and your beliefs and unite with whomever your party leadership tells you to support. Well Eric, if this is the change that Barack Obama and the DNC leadership represent; then you can bend over and shove it where it belongs.
You’re ignorance is no longer welcome on this site, go spread the gospel somewhere else. We will stick to changing the process through the reduction of ignorance not the embracement of it.
Wow. This is the first time I have enjoyed reading a blog and the comments following it. Some people here speak truth about this screwed up the ass race and I am happy to hear it.
It seems that the only place you were capable to find real news and blogs was through foreign web sites. They were the few to be unbiased and comprehensive in their reporting.
The US media outlets whose opinions I can trust in are Lou Dobbs, lately FOX news (ridiculous I know, they are a product of the far right, but they are the only newscast besides Dobbs who doesn't suck Obamas tits) and now this site.
Hooray!!!
I agree with the premise of this post and thank you for the post, it really says a lot that Hillary has won more congressional districts. She has much more broad-based support than Obama!
But minor correction to the list of the states won after March 4th -- you omitted Mississippi from the states won by Obama.
Post a Comment