Clinton landslide imminent in West Virginia & Kentucky?

Looking ahead to West Virginia happening tomorrow, May 13th, the polls are heavily in Hillary Clinton’s favor with a possible 30 to 40 point blowout victory. Furthermore, Kentucky happening on May 20th is looking to shaping up as a lopsided win for Clinton as well.

As evidence pointing to the possibility of a major blowout, take this chart of polls over the past few days and weeks:

West Virginia Democratic Primary
Primary Date: May 13 | Delegates at Stake: 28

Why the ridiculous edge for Clinton, you ask? Well some of it has to do with an outright opposition to Obama. Some explanation from this story in the Financial Times:

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

Mr Simpson’s remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday’s primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.

A landslide victory for Mrs Clinton in West Virginia will do little to improve her fading hopes of winning the Democratic nomination, because Mr Obama has an almost insurmountable lead in the overall race.

But Tuesday’s contest is likely to reinforce Mrs Clinton’s argument that she would be the stronger opponent for Mr McCain in November, and raise fresh doubts about whether the US is ready to elect its first black president.

Occupying a swathe of the Appalachian Mountains on the threshold between the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt, West Virginia is a swing state that voted twice for George W. Bush but backed Democrats in six of the eight prior presidential elections.

That is part of the explanation, though I don’t buy the notion that every single WV voter thinks Obama is a “closet Muslim.” I do, however, think WV holds true with trends in other states where Clinton takes less educated voters overwhelmingly. Obama’s strongest suit is college educated voters who seem to want to take a chance on him as a “new kind” of politician. Less educated voters see Clinton as a stronger candidate who can actually produce results, whereas Obama would be taking a chance they can’t afford.

Therefore, we have a probable blowout victory tomorrow.

A video report on West Virginia from the Associated Press:

Similar trends are heading in that direction for Kentucky as well:

Kentucky is a similar makeup to West Virginia which is Clinton territory. Truth be told, even two Clinton blowout victories will not change the course of this nomination process other than give her some ammunition to argue that she can carry the swing states come November.

We’ll be covering WV tomorrow once the polls close Tuesday evening at 7:30pm eastern.

  • Whobody

    Many in W.V. have anymosity toward Obama because he represents change. This is a state where the “good ol’ boys” like to keep things the way they are. More important though is a West Virginian’s loyalty; They like tradition, so a campaign based on change is hard for them to trust.

    Even today a co-worker was excited about Hillary’s visit to her hometown tonight, so she tells me how awesome Hillary and Bill are and that Obama and his wife are racists. When I asked how she came to that conclusion, she told me, “because they are,” and proceeded to leave the room. So, like Mr. Simpson in the above story, she didn’t have much to back up her claim, but somehow they think Hillary is more like them.

    WV is also a state where the whole of its citizens like to rally around one another, so if they know that the majority of the state is leaning one way, that’s gonna pull more to that side. West Virginia likes to vote Democrat, but even Hillary would have trouble in the general election against a decorated vet in this state.

    That’s not to say there aren’t West Virginians that believe in Obama, because I am one, and I know he’s got the grassroots movement here just like every other state.

    West By God Virginians for Obama ’08!

  • Part of the edge perhaps is the edge Clinton has in the campaigning as well. This in some ways harkens back to my earlier argument about Florida. Obama does well (or much better) in states where he aggressively campaigned. Clinton is the well-known staple name throughout the country, so Obama has to make his name and case heard before even defending himself.

    This is why I believe he was at a disadvantage in Florida, and why he is losing much in West Virginia and Kentucky. The Obama Campaign is directing supporters to avoid these states and focus their efforts in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana. If he is only doing nominal work and advertising in West Virginia and Kentucky, then it would see likely that a Clinton “blowout” should occur.

    If he had campaigned heavily, he would lose, but I believe by much less.

  • Michelle

    How do you erase ignorance? “Closet Muslim”? Are you kidding me?

  • Frank

    I really dont understand voters about Obama.

    ‘hes black’
    ‘hes a muslim’
    ‘His whife is an athiest’

    SO WHAT!!!!

    ‘Look out a black liberal is coming!!’

    How many conservatives (including the Clintons) have to do nothing about the real problems in the country and the world before liberals get a chance in the white house?

    When do these ignorant conservative voters start to care about poverty, healtcare and not bombing countrys in stead of voting anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, and pro bomb innocent muslims so we can feel safer?

  • gregg

    stop the drama, get lost OBAMA

  • Michel

    “When do these ignorant conservative voters start to care about poverty, healtcare and not bombing countrys in stead of voting anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, and pro bomb innocent muslims so we can feel safer?”

    We have educated the population that way. And I say “we” to include myself in the problem, but most of the responsability comes to traditional campaigns and to the media, which has strong conservative trends and likes to prey on fear (which is, after all, a conservative trait).

    So you ask why these people vote for the things they vote and attack the things they attack when it’s almost nothing to back up their worries.

    Well… “we” voted for a second Bush term, didn’t we?
    And a first one, I may add.

    Making the right decisions for the right reasons is the difficult thing to do. To screw things up… oh, that’s really easy.

  • Michel

    – gregg: “stop the drama, get lost OBAMA” –

    See what I was talking about? Very easy.

  • Dem ’08

    I never voted for Bush in either election. I am proud that I didn”t.


    My question is about what you wrote:
    Many in W.V. have anymosity toward Obama because he represents change. This is a state where the “good ol’ boys” like to keep things the way they are. More important though is a West Virginian’s loyalty; They like tradition, so a campaign based on change is hard for them to trust.

    WV is also a state where the whole of its citizens like to rally around one another, so if they know that the majority of the state is leaning one way, that’s gonna pull more to that side.

    I don’t care where you live, this is crap. This is biased no doubt. I would bet money that if the state were leaning toward Obama you would paint a different picture for this group. You know Obama will get the nomination and still you can’t be straight…..sad!

  • Michel

    “I never voted for Bush in either election. I am proud that I didn”t.” – Dem’08

    I didn’t either. And of course you should be proud of that. But my point is that we’re all on the same boat, and we all must work to solve the problems of this country, instead of just trying to save 40 dollars for a few months and placing blames on people.

    There are people out there who can’t undersand they made a mistake when the voted for Bush. Those people are on the same country, and are part of the same people. Instead of just arguing anda telling everybody to “get the hell out of America”, we must understand which are our strengths and our weaknesses, and work better with each other.

    I know, I know…. some will call me a “commie”. I don’t care.

  • IndiMinded

    I think you’d do better with your message of unity if you didn’t look so much to place blame in the past. Bush isn’t popular right now, but why is it important to discuss a “mistake” that can’t be corrected? Far more constructive to look at what state our country is in, how it got to be this way, and how it could be better. So long as we’re playing the blame game we, as a country, will never get past partisan bickering.

    I’m also sort of disheartened to see the story from the financial times, clearly implying that West Virginians aren’t voting for Obama because they’re just ignorant about the race. Is that 67 year old coal miner really an excellent representative of WV voters and their knowledge of the candidates? That article reads almost like a piece of slander against West Virginians.

  • Michel

    Well, for one reason: It is my belief that the mistake can’t be corrected, but can be prevented from happening again. The war can be terminated in a succesful way, the economy revitalized by expert, uncompromised opinions. The health care can begin to provide a better quality of life for everyone without compromising its competence, and the level of education can raise to compare itself with the best countries around the world… a world that can begin to see us as a friends and as guide towards progress, and not as a threat of death, greed and fear.

    And all that may happen if we give it a chance to happen. But it won’t if we choose the wrong candidate again. It won’t happen if we choose by the wrong reasons. It isn’t anymore if Obama would be the right or the wrong president, or McCain would…. the question is if we are voting for the RIGHT reasons… not just because we are angry and fearful and resented over things that can be a product of the lies we’ve told ourselves over and over. Those people that are quoted in the article, they may not be the majority of the W.V. voters…

    …. but they are a weight in the race. More or less heavy, but an undisputed weight. And they could decide something. When I cast my vote, I’m not just thinking about me. I’m thinking also of those who are much more worse than I am. I’m looking to try to figure out, by myself and by the wise comments of others who reason with me, who could be the best candidate. It has nothing to do if I like him/her as a person, but what he’s planning to do with OUR contry.

    So yes, if I had voted for Bush in the past, with all the evidence of him being a lousy and hazardous president… then I’d be putting some guilt over my own shoulders. Because that guilt, Indiminded, is what prevents me from making that horrible mistake again.

    That’s probably the main reason I won’t be voting for McCain, unless someone shows me that he’s the better option, with argument and evidence, not with bias. Not saying that Obama is a muslim and his wife and atheist. That’s not reasoning. That’s a byproduct of Bush politics of racism and a tradition of fear and intolerance. And I can’t accept it.

    So yes, you say “putting blame in the past”, I say “finding the causes of what brought us here”. If we can’t see the truth in front of us and identify the problem… how are we ever gonna solve it?

    But thank you for your opinion, which is much welcome.

    By the way, I’m not for attacking the west virginians, but if Whobody is from the state, at least we should give his/her opinion some weight on the matter. It may not be politically correct, but it could be true to some degree.

  • Jessica

    It doesn’t matter who I’m voting for…the closed-mindedness of the people in that video made me SICK!!! Of course, it can be said that a video with interviews from only a few people in one restaurant doesn’t represent the whole state, but I have a bad feeling that it does. Why don’t people PAY ATTENTION to the world around them and do at least a little research via the ‘net, newspaper, even watch some news reports! It sounds like they don’t even really know who is running in terms of the actual person. Their opinions are based on assumptions rather than facts. Blahh I just want to PUKE!!!

  • Babs

    IndiMinded, I think the interviews were purposely slanted to brush off Hillary’s impending victory today. “yeah, she won, but look at who voted for her” type of thing. The media has already declared Obama the nominee, so the states left to vote – IF they’re voting for Hillary – will be demoralized in some way to downplay Hillary’s argument that she should be the nominee. I think Obama furthered this by not bothering to campaign heavily in WV or Kentucky. Very insulting for those voters……..

  • Jeff Edwards

    Even if Obama was a Muslim and his wife an Atheist how does that make him, in any rational way, a less attractive candidate to vote for?

    Even for voters who are “values voters” (ie: mostly uneducated blue collar religious voters) their priority should be which candidate can best handle the important issues like the economy, iraq etc. so whether or not they are religious or an atheist should have no bearing on the vote of a rational thinking adult.

  • Melvin

    Babs I hate to say it but that is exactly the case ““yeah, she won, but look at who voted for her””. That is WV; where the people proudly call themselves “The Hillbillies”. I have a cousin that lives there that is afraid of black people and he has never seen a black person face to face, but his mother is half black.

    Clinton herself has said the the white uneducated people are her base. She couldn’t have been more insulting to her own voters if she would have just said rubes that don’t know any better.

    I mean let’s be honest here saying that uneducated people are the ones that vote for you the most is not something to be proud of.

  • Whobody

    Dem ’08 –

    I said nothing bad about Hillary. Nor West Virginians for that matter (or would I ever). I love this state. My point was West Virginians like tradition and the things they know and they band together as a whole state for there causes. There are alot of people who may get painted in the wrong light here when it comes to issues, but they see something in Hillary that they identify with because they feel she is more like them than Obama. And I mentioned that John McCain will appeal to them in the general election because of his time in the service and stance on the war. It’s just the way things are here. It’s a commentary, I’m not blasting anyone.

    If the state were leaning Obama I would say the same thing. They are a loyal population who rally around other West Virginians. What is biased about that? What other picture would I paint? There is nothing wrong with loyalty and tradition. These are good traits, but I’m just saying this is not a state that loves “change” and anyone running on that premise is not going to fair well. So what’s your problem with me stating that? Would you rather me repeat the same old thing that the state is 90% Hillary’s voter base – white, working class? I was just offering some insight into that white, working class voter block beyond the media coverage. Maybe the way you read things is skewed because I said I was an Obama supporter.

  • Whobody

    Melvin –
    All West Virginians are NOT like that, so don’t put us all in that catagory.

  • Melvin

    Whobody, I understand that not all of WV is like that. Believe me I have family there myself. Some are and some aren’t. Unfortunately for us both though the ones that are like that have been the most vocal as of late.

  • Babs

    Whobody, I agree with you on your assessment because I believe a lot of states and even regions within states vote for a particular candidate – whichever candidate – because they feel that candidate identifies with their own culture. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I don’t think its about labels – educated, uneducated, etc. – but simply about culture and life style. Being of a certain culture doesn’t mean you’re less valued, and being uneducated doesn’t mean you’re ignorant. I think those are elitist labels, and shouldn’t have a place in this. I don’t think you were disrespectful of your fellow West Virginians at all, and being an Obama supporter you did have that option. Kudos to you on that. =)

  • Babs

    Hey, Whobody, Gov. Perdue here in Georgia has granted a “gas tax holiday” for non-road diesel fuel. This means that while the gas tax is in effect to preserve the road funds, the farmers (who make up a large population in the state) will enjoy a break for their farm equipment (its said it’s taking $400 per day per tractor in fuel) which will help in keep food prices lower for the season. The way I see it, it’s a win win situation. What do you think?

  • Whobody

    Thank you so much, Babs! I was hoping that everyone did not read into it what Dem ’08 had. This is a beautiful state with proud people.

    Melvin – I understand what your saying. I just don’t want that stereotype perpetuated even more than it is right now, because that’s what it is — a sterotype.

  • IndiMinded

    I agree with almost everything you say Michel, and I share your desire to learn from past mistakes. Of course that’s an essential part of moving forward. However, doing so in a manner that involves finger pointing and blame is bound to be divisive – and so my point is that you cannot include this in a message of unity. The difference between constructive criticism and venomous accusations of blame are often very subtle, but they are also important.

    I didn’t vote for Bush, and I certainly don’t like him very much. But I also recognize that as an unpopular as he is, he’s become sort of a political punching bag, and while that may allow people to vent their frustrations, I don’t think it’s particularly constructive. The horse is long dead, and I, for one, am tired of seeing it beaten.

  • IndiMinded

    I have to agree with your take on the situation. I think since Hillary declared that uneducated white folk are her base, the press may have embraced this in an over-the-top manner that’s insulting to her supporters.

    But as to Obama not campaigning, I’m not sure why you feel that’s insulting. The republican primaries are still being held too, but McCain stopped state-by-state campaigning for them a long time ago, in order to focus on a broader national campaign. I don’t think anyone thought of that as insulting. Obama just feels secure enough to stop, and I don’t blame him.

    Not a day has gone by in the last week that he hasn’t grabbed up superdelegate support. So far he’s got 2 today, yesterday it was 4. Everyone will have their chance to vote, but at some point, there aren’t enough votes left to change an outcome. That point has already arrived, Hillary just hasn’t chosen to recognize it yet, but just because she hasn’t conceded that doesn’t mean she hasn’t lost.

  • Whobody

    Babs – Yes! That sounds positive.

    With it being for industries like farming it will have a trickle down effect for consumers, which is a plus for the economy and not such an economic risk like the national proposition. I’m all for economic relief, we’ve just got to think of better ways to do it, and taking money from a federal highway fund doesn’t help drivers, truckers, or highway workers in the long run. We’ve got to think about the way we increase demand, too. If demand goes up when it’s in short supply, it’s naturally going to raise or sustain price.

    Way to be Gov. Perdue. Starting these ideas at a state level is an easier way to gauge if they will work on a larger population. Let’s just hope that oil companies don’t counter with an increase in price in the region. Can they do that?- raise prices to one region or population sector, while not in another?

  • Michel

    Great comment.

    Obama DID campaign in W.Virginia. Maybe not so much as he has been campaigning in other states, but he did campaign there and adressed the need of help for military veterans and his very own patriotism (he wore a flag lapel pin… OMG!)

    So, I don’t know why you say he didn’t campaign there. Maybe you got your facts mixed up.

    And I don’t agree is disrespectful from him to not waste time and start working towards a general election. He’s assuming he will be the Democratic candidate and his main opponent now is McCain, not Clinton. When McCain was called as the preesumptive Republican nominee, he stopped campaigning in many of the states that were still left to vote in the Republican primaries. So why do you think Obama has been disrespectful?

  • Babs

    I’m not sure if they can or not, Whobody, but also this is not the first time Perdue has implemented a tax holiday, he also did it in 2005 after Katrina drove up prices with good results. He also parked the school buses state wide for a few days which had a surprising impact on the diesel supply at that time. It’s estimated that this tax break for farmers and timber growers will save them $2 to $4 mil this season. Here’s a fairly short article on it in the Atlanta Journal (this just happened yesterday):

    Indiminded, as you say, Obama knows he has the nomination, and he’s comfortable in stopping. I think it will appear Obama has simply brushed the people of this state off as insignificant, and that’s both insulting and a bad move on Obama’s part when it comes to the General. I just think these people will have the attitude that if they were not worth troubling himself with in the primary – don’t bother in the general. And I believe this because I know this region, too, and I suspect Whobody and Melvin might have to agree. Southerners circle the wagons around those they believe care about them, and Obama just essentially told them he didn’t. At least that’s the way they’re going to see it.

  • Michel

    Indiminded… to call Bush a “political punching bag” it’s like calling the nazis during the Nuremberg trials punching bags too. I’ve been vocal against Bush as long as I remember, even when he was governor and was so pro-death penalty. And after Afghanistan I became even more disgusted at him, even with all the patriotism we were being bombarded with from the media. Just because he’s at a new political low doesn’t mean is incorrect to pint at him as one of the worst mistakes we have delivered as a country.

    I give you that many politicans (specially democrats) are using Bush as an argument to deliver their messages, but that’s a valid thing to do. He’s after all a train wreck, and we need to address those kinds of things. But not just Bush… Cheney and Rove as well, and many others in his administration. There are people out there who won’t acknowledge the damage Bush has done to our country. Therefore, I feel we need to remember our past mistakes (electing a train wreck like him) and try our best to stay away from doing a thing like that again.

    When Bush got reelected, I didn’t even believe I was in the country the talked with so much pride about its democracy. And if we elect someone who supports Bush on many of his mistakes…. then that horse is not as dead as we thought.

  • Michel

    Babs, I wrote a response for you about Obama campaigning in W.V. but the comment is awaiting moderation. Obama DID campaign in W.Virginia. Maybe not so much as he has been campaigning in other states, but he did campaign there (in the Carleston Civic Center) and gave a speech about a plan to give help for military veterans (which McCain opposes) and his very own patriotism (he wore a flag pin).

    If you wants links proving that just wait until my comment above gets moderation, and then… click away.

  • bennett

    I do not get why people do not trust Obama on his religious beliefs… he has come out time and time agian publicly professing his beleif in Jesus, (which does not matter at all to me, but hey I understand tradition)… WHAT MORE DO PEOPLE EXPECT… DO THEY WANT HIM TO WALK ON WATER OR HAVE JESUS AS HIS RUNNING MATE…… I think some of these people that harbor this ignorant “closet muslim” belief, would shake hands with Jesus and they still would not believe it was him (these are probably the same people that think Jesus had blonde hair blue eyes and spoke english), either that or they are total xenophobs and parinoid of anything slightly “other”, or they are racist and dont realize or want to admit it, they cant take Obama at his word because he is BLACK, or was born into a non-traditional family. Obviously some of this margin is due to more thoughtout and legitimate support for Clinton, but a huge part has to do with the good ole boy network in a state that has a history of serious electoral corruption (paying people for votes) race and peoples religious parinoia, all of which are rooted in pure ignorance,… oh well this Renniasance in American politics has to happen agianst the backdrop of something,… a Renniasance has to contrast with something a little ugly and dark…

  • Babs

    IndiMinded, one thing I forgot to say. The difference in McCain switching to a national format and Obama is that McCain already has the nomination – Obama hasn’t. Just because he assumes he’s the nominee doesn’t make it official, the election today is still a primary between he and Hillary, not a general between he and McCain. So you really can’t compare the two on current campaign strategies.

  • Michel

    McCain doesn’t have the nomination…. officially. They address him as the preesumptive Republican nominee. Everyone know he will be because he secured all the votes. But he isn’t the nominee just yet because he needs to be nominated at the RNC national convention.

    Right now, Obama is the democratic candidate with more supers and more pledged delegates (yes, even counting the Flrodia resutls). So he can briefly congratulate himself and start going to general election states.

  • Michelle

    Jesus would make a kick-ass running mate, but they’d lose the general election for being “soft on terror”.

  • Michel

    Michelle: Yeap, he would be showing the other cheek.

    For all of those that criticize Obama for not campaigning in W.V., here you go…

  • Babs

    Nobody here said he didn’t campaign at all. Well, Michael came pretty close. *L* You missed the point – again.

  • Whobody

    Hillary made 12 stops in WV over 7 days.
    Barack made 3 stops in WV over 2 days.

    10 campaign stops were made in May, so I believe this month there were 7 stops by Hillary to 3 stops by Obama.

    I don’t think he neglected the state. There have been candidates that don’t stop here at all. — That’s in the primary and the general.

  • Whobody

    Also, Hillary deploys Bill and Chelsea, so it gives her the appearance of even more campaigning than she is doing strictly by herself.

  • Whobody

    Another side note –

    McCain has not made it to the state at all. The republicans that did make an appearance in WV are Paul, Romney, Gulianni, and Huckabee — all with one apiece.

  • Babs

    No, Whobody, he just didn’t give it the attention he has given other states that he considered pivotal in the race. He’s written off the primaries now was what mine and IndiMinded’s conversation basically was, and you have to admit 3 stops in a state even as small as WV is no more than cursory politeness. By your numbers, Hillary worked WV 4 to 1 more than Obama, which was our point. And Michael’s too, I think.

  • rickyers

    Yes i think before you celebrate, you need to make sure Obama has the nomination. Last time i checked, it said you need 2024 delegates, and obama has 1860. So technically, i dont think he’s got it yet. Stranger things have happened, its not over just yet. I think Clinton will surprised. Obabma better hope it doesn’t go to the convention. He would lose for sure. Dont make a mistake and take it for granted. One thing for sure, he will lose to Mcain. So if the SD’s want to support a loser, then by all means, take a drink of Kool-aid. Let’s await the much anticipated story about Tony Renzo comming out soon, very soon. Obama will also be involved. I heard a fellom can’t run for office.

  • Whobody

    I’m also saying 3 is more than we have recieved in the past. Normally we’re lucky if more than one candidate stops at all.

    I think that he spent alot of time in money in Penn. which definately lowered Clinton’s margin of victory. Instead of people saying, “He did a good thing by bringing his message to PA,” they criticized him saying that “he spent all this money and still didn’t win.” They used his effort to say he fell short, when actually he brought alot of people to his side. It is possible that political strategy would encourage him to not give Hillary the same fire power again. They could say, “He campaigned here just as much as we did, he still lost.” When they know that the voter base heavily favors her anyway.

    Again… the presumptive Republican nominee didn’t show up in WV at all, so I don’t think we should start judging the general election on how many stops candidates made in WV during the primary.

  • Whobody

    I will note that the site where I got the campaign numbers has said that “Obama’s campaign has stopped announcing full details about some of his campaign events. As a result, several stops didn’t make it into the MTC database, which weighs down Obama’s average stops per day.”

    However, I think the WV stops I was talking about are correct.

  • Whobody

    About me saying Clinton would criticize Obama for losing if he campaigned in WV as much as she did– They did it anyway…

  • Michel

    Babs, work with em on this: if Obama doesn’t campaign in W.V. (and he did, and you said he didn’t – at all) then that is “Very insulting for those voters…”

    But if McCain doesn’t even appear in the state, then he is just not giving “the attention he has given other states that he considered pivotal in the race.”

    Aren’t you impartial, you funny one! Those comments are a joke, right? 😀

    And Rickyers… it’s Tony Rezko, and no, it’s not much anticipated because it’s confirmed that Obama had nothing to do with that scandal (read the news). And you say that when this goes to the convention “he would lose for sure”. Now, I gotta ask you some serious question….. Are You Kidding Me?

  • Dee

    I don’t think Obama is Muslim but so what if he is. Who cares what his former pastor says or said; I don’t hold another man’s words against anyone – one can’t be held responsible for things that friends/associates say or believe. I don’t dislike him because he’s black – his race is irrelevent to me. The fact is, he doesn’t have the experience to deal with the problems that we are currently facing and those that lie before us. It’s as simple as that. Hillary is the most viable choice. That’s why I won’t be voting for Obama next week.

    If Obama is the nominee, I won’t be voting in November because either way – McCain or Obama – we would be looking at another four years of mayhem, four years at the very least. Hasn’t eight years of imcompetence, drastically increased cost of living, endless conflict and total chaos been enough?

    Besides, face it, the polls show that a higher number of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama in November versus Obama supporters not willing to vote for Clinton. Also, in a society still as racist as ours unfortunately is, he will never carry enough Republican and Independent voters to win against McCain especially without those Clinton supporters.

    I believe that he has potential to be a very good President once his potential has been fully developed but that time is NOT now. He just doesn’t have enough experience in federal government. I think he jumped the gun and all that’s in it for us is to be screwed once again…this time by folks in our own party.

    If Obama is the Democratic nominee, we WILL have another Republican president…the absolute last thing this country needs.

  • Michel

    I respect very much your opinion and you explained it pretty clearly, but…

    If you agree that the last thing this country needs is McCain as president, why won’t you vote for Obama then? If more Obama voters are inclined to vote for Hllary over McCain in the general election… why can’t Clinton’s supporters do the same? Isn’t that vote of yours a better contribution to prevent this country from falling on the shoulders of John McCain?

    There’s a saying in spanish that cand be translated pretty much this way: “A known incompetent man is better than a competent but unknown man.” Well, I don’t believe in that sentence. I believe there’s a better future for America in the hands of an inexpert president with wise views and good intentions than in the hands of an expert politician with lousy views and not so good intentions.

    Bush wasn’t a terrible president because he was inexpert. It had little to do with that.

    I hope you see my point. But nonetheless I respect very much the way you presented your points of view.

  • Michelle

    I just don’t understand the outright opposal to Obama. The man has experience in the Senate: eight years in his state of Illinois and two years in the U.S. Senate.

    He is held in high regard in many countries and would no doubt help restore the tattered image of our country that has been formed over the last eight years. His willingness to speak with world leaders shows he is not a president interested in more wars and devastation, but a true diplomat worthy of the presidency.

    He is the only candidate running presently who has spoken soundly about the economy, presenting reasonable solutions and showing knowledge of economic issues in a way that the others have not.

    Case in point:



    He has shown incredible judgement on the issue of Iraq in the past, and continues to do so with the proposal to responsibly exit Iraq and focus our troops on Al-Queada’s true base in Afganistan.

    He is a new type of politican, one who is honest about the state of our country, how we got to this point, and where we need to be. I find such honesty admirable, especially in a world were people are more comfortable ingnorantly believing lies (i.e. the Muslim thing).

    Lastly, he is a good Christian man and is not judgemental of others. He did not disown Reverand Wright for his controversial words at sermons; he disowned him for saying Obama was merely a politican and he belittled all the things Obama has and continues to work for. Also, if you check out the Weather Underground, it’s a board dedicated to civil rights and work within the community – Ayers was a member because he was dedicated to those same values and other than that had no affliation with Obama. And he has NOT ONCE attacked his opponent’s character, McCain OR Hillary, even when the others have done so to him.

    So again, why the outright opposition to Obama? Especially to the point where you would rather vote for McCain or not at all (which is pretty much voting for McCain as well).

    I remain baffled.

  • Whobody

    Dee –
    So, if Hillary (who you seem to admire very much) said that Obama is the better choice than McCain in the fall, and that she would be voting for Obama, and that you and everyone else should support and vote for Obama…. you wouldn’t do it?

    If you trust her now, wouldn’t you trust her then?

  • Babs

    Whobody, I think you’re asking that Dee trust Hillary’s judgement explicitely and unconditionally, and I don’t think any of us have that much trust in any of the candidates. To be led blindly by any of them would make us fools. =)

  • Whobody

    No, Babs, I am definately not asking her to trust explicitly and unconditionally. I am simply asking a conditional question. No UNconditional about it… THE CONDITION IS:

    Dee seems to respect Hillary’s opinion. So…
    In the case of a McCain vs. Obama general election where Hillary says Obama is a better choice (and HER choice as well), would Dee still trust Hillary’s judgement enough to support Hillary’s candidate of choice?

    It’s a hypothetical question that asks someone’s opinion on a hypothetical situation. I am not asking any explicit ACTION of Dee, but merely her hypothetical action of OPINION on a hypothetical statement. No one has to be BLIND to the situation. Suppose for a minute that the conditional statement also entailed listening to WHY Hillary chose to support Obama and then making a decision on whether to trust Hillary’s judgement based on her reasoning. Maybe a better hypothetical is “Would you trust Hillary if she trusted Obama?” We’re not assuming Hillary is BLINDLY trusting him are we?

  • Babs

    Whobody, if we’re only talking hypotheticals, then do you think that Hillary is going to openly support or campaign for Obama? And what do you think of the recent news about Michele Obama’s disliking Hillary enough that she could block an Obama/Clinton ticket? I think the media made some good points on that – the campaign between the two of them has been so mean spirited at times that it’s hard to imagine a reconcillation of the two on anything, much less a “dream ticket”. What’s your hypothetical prediction on that?

  • Stalin

    This so called “Dream Ticket” would actually be a “Disaster Ticket”. When are Democrats going to realize that ultra liberals cannot with the White House. If Obama is as smart as he thinks he is, he will pick a moderate Democrat that appeals to the elderly and the white working class.

  • Babs

    “moderate Democrat that appeals to the elderly and the white working class” But Stalin…………that’s what Hillary is. =)

  • Whobody

    I think Hillary will openly support Obama, but most likely will not campaign for him. If she wants him to fail in the general (which seems rather selfish), she will not attempt direct pursuasion of her voter base. If she truely believes in the issues she supports herself, it would do her more benefit to actually campaign for Obama, seeing as she could be very influential in convincing the elderly and white working class that his ideals are more on point with her’s than McCain’s. Plus it would go further in creating a Dem majority in government (again benefiting Hillary).
    So, hypothetically – Yes, she would support Obama.

    I don’t think we have to worry about a “dream” ticket, because Hillary, most likely, would turn it down if she entertained the notion at all (I don’t think the position will be offered to her, though; discussed, but never officially offered). I feel she would have offered the position to Obama, had she been the nominee (another hypothetical).
    So, hypothetically – We don’t have to worry about the soap opera drama of Michele vs. Hillary.

    See how questions (even hypothetical ones) are better answered with statements rather than more questions. Especially when all your asking for is opinion. That’s all I asked of Dee, but for some reason I was questioned for my question. I would really like some more insight into why Hillary supporters would not vote Obama in the general election when politically their ideals and leanings are very similar. I was not looking to change Dee’s mind with a confounding question (which could be twisted to appear that way), but I was merely wanting to know why would they not support similar political agendas. Dee stated she would not vote for Obama, and thinks Hillary is a qualified decision maker. So what if that qualified decision-maker, Hillary, said that the best thing for citizens to do was vote for Obama? It seems a fair question (even if we only ask ourselves and don’t answer in an online forum). An answer one way or the other is better than avoiding it all together. I asked a co-worker the same thing, and she answered me with her reasons. It brought about good discussion, and I felt I understood a little better the mindset of the percentage of Hillary supporters who said they would not vote for Obama. I’ve asked the same question to a friend who supports Obama and says he would not vote Hillary in the fall if it was Hillary vs. McCain.

    Why would you take such exception to this question, Babs?

  • Babs

    I didn’t take exception to it, Whobody, and I apologize if it sounded that way. Being an independent myself, I have a hard time understanding why someone would vote “the party” even though that means voting for someone you stand against today. What did the people who answered you say? I’d be really curious to know their reasons, to see if they are close to what mine would be. Against, I wasn’t trying to antagonize you. 😉

  • Whobody

    Voting “the party” and voting for candidates with similar ideals aren’t always the same thing. Sometimes you can pick a major issue that divides candidate aside from party lines. In this case, we have the gas tax holiday, but I doubt that’s a big enough or productive enough issue for someone to base their whole vote on. We’ve known from the start that Obama and Clinton are similar in terms of political agenda — Much more so than say Clinton and McCain. So, switching because of personal vendetta seems counterproductive.

    Actually, both the Hillary supporter and the Obama supporter that I posed that question to had relatively similar answers if you simplified their reasons. It’s perhaps even an over-simplification, but the basic reason was they did not “trust” the other candidate. I found this a little comedic, because “trusting a politician” sounds like a funny statement to me in the first place. It makes me want to compare it to a phrase like, “believing a liar.” Yet, granted while I don’t want to admit to “trusting” them, I do want “believe” or “hope” that they have are best interest at heart and that they are going to follow through with the things they are saying they’re going to do. So, I entertained their respective positions with more questions of similar policies between the candidates and why one or the other would throw us into a catastrophic tailspin.

    The differences in response were possibly a little more telling than the similarity of “distrust.” —-

    The Obama supporter said that at the beginning of the campaign he had no harsh feelings towards Hillary, but as the campaign became a close race, he began to see that she could become “negative” and “hateful” in her speech. He said he began to see her as unethical or “dirty” in her persuit of the presidency, which he now felt was more about her own personal legacy than the legacy of our country. I would mention how similar there ideals were, and that if Obama couldn’t be in office, then we should probably think about voting for Clinton. To this he would say that he agreed that they had outlined similar plans, but he no longer felt that he could trust Hillary to stick to the things she says.

    The Hillary supporters most striking argument and one she kept coming back to was that she did not “trust his eyes.” While I granted that’s not something I can argue against, I moved the conversation along to what she thought was behind those eyes. She gave me justifications of him belonging to a racist church and not caring about people like the working-class. We did eventually get the conversation onto the issues: she would present Hillary’s plan, and then I would counter with Obama’s similarities and (when appropriate) why I thought his slight differences had substance in my opinion. The conversation of issues went well, but I found her jumping back to saying that he was racist and untrustworthy.

    So they had both developed a distrust, or even disgust, for the opposing candidate. I found the comparison of the two very interesting, and now when I hear a Dem candidate supporter say they would not vote for the opposing Dem candidate come Fall election time, it really makes me wonder how much of it is because of political reason and how much is personal, hurt feelings. We are electing a leader for our country and government, not a prom king/queen, and it seems to have become a little of a clique-war between rather large percentages of the Democratic voter population.

  • Whobody

    Apologies for the many grammar mistakes…

    are = our
    there = their

    ..and so forth.

    I was trying to keep it short and perhaps typing a little too fast.

  • Babs

    Whobody, the two opinions from your colleagues pretty much are coinciding with all the exit polls, aren’t they? This troubles me some, because I think the two groups of supporters truly have drawn that line in the sand as if they were voting for, as you say, a prom king or queen. I suppose being a McCain supporter it shouldn’t bother me, especially if the situation swings votes to McCain, but it does because its not a popularity contest. I can see where some Hillary supporters could swing to McCain because Hillary seems to be somewhere in the middle between McCain and Obama. But I don’t understand the Obama supporters who wouldn’t support Hillary. Obama is far left, to vote for McCain on the right out of spite for Hillary just doesn’t make since and is childish. But I can understand more, as I said, a Hillary supporter voting for McCain because they are both more moderate, they agree on the tax holiday to a point, and they both are in that “experienced” column.

  • Whobody

    Yeah, you could be right about the swing to McCain, but I think that number “bitter” voters saying they will swing to another candidate now will decrease as the general election debates start. Possibly backing McCain or Obama because of actual interest and not just spite.

    I also asked these same two friends if their stance meant a vote for McCain in November. Both said that they would NOT vote for McCain. So, the one who will be left bitter (which now looks like the Hillary supporter) may be up for grabs in the general, and their vote may fall to a third party candidate by default. She (the Hillary supporter) actually had said that she would still write in Hillary on her general election ballot, but this comment seemed to be made because the heat of battle still resonates. It will be interesting to see what happens to those unhappy voters when the dust settles.

    In the year where we will be changing over from the Bush-era, I just really hope people realize how important it is that they pick an issue or candidate that really means something for them (and that very well could be a third party candidate, but hopefully for the right reasons, not personal vendetta). It’s an election that decides the post-Bush direction of the country, and the world is watching.

  • Babs

    I agree with you completely, Whobody. How about that, an Obama and a McCain supporter agreeing on principals. See, it’s not so hard. *LOL*

    PS – I’ve been wondering if Hillary supporters might actually start up a write-in campaign. Could happen.

  • IndiMinded

    As an Obama supporter who would consider voting for McCain as an alternative, I’ll tell you why: it’s about leadership qualities such as integrity and strength of character. I really appreciate someone who is a straight talker and respects others and the American people. McCain is a class act so far as that goes, and a war hero to boot. I have volumes of respect for the man, even if I don’t agree with him on most issues. It’s very important to me to have someone I can respect in office, and I respect John McCain.

    I think Hillary would make a good president, so far as competency goes. But I also think she’s more power-hungry than I’m comfortable with. Some of the things she’s said this election display this, for instance when she went after Barack Obama for using the words of a man on his campaign staff without giving him credit – a man who had done speech writing for him – and she berated him for this by saying “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s change you can xerox!” – a real zinger of a line that was written by someone on her campaign staff whom she did not credit.

    You see Hillary didn’t actually care about that issue. She cared about the polls. She would say anything to manipulate the people into voting for her. Once she’s in office, won’t she just continue to say anything to make the people do what she wants them to do?

    I’m not dumb enough to think that any politician running has more than a thimble full of integrity. I just don’t believe Hillary even has that thimble filled, and so I’d be afraid to let her run this country. Her ruthlessness scares me, quite frankly.

  • Babs

    Now see, that’s a good reason, IndiMinded, and proves that character and integrity really do play a role in the contest.

  • Whobody

    Well said, IndiMinded. I harbor many of the same feelings as you do on McCain and Hillary. I’ve told Babs before that I am a casual McCain fan and have respect for the man. His ideals (as you also mentioned) just don’t quite meet mine the way Obama’s do.

    Do you sometimes think that Hillary’s ruthlessness (as you put it) results in that mindset being echoed by her supporters and politically aware citizens more than the McCain or Obama camps? Or is that too direct or simplified of a correlation?

  • IndiMinded

    I definitely wouldn’t say that her supporters share that mindset, but I do think they tend to be of a less idealistic nature, and probably don’t tend to put much stock in idealism. In my experience her voters are the self-described realists, and mostly think Obama is either corrupt or naive, and they don’t care which it is.

    I think there’s been a divide in the democratic party for many years now between moderate and liberal leaning democrats, and Hillary v. Obama embodies that divide very naturally – it’s almost as if 3 parties have been formed this season. Unfortunately, in this election only one side will win and leave the other side feeling they have no candidate to vote for.

    That’s why I really do suspect that Hillary will be offered the VP, because I doubt that most of her supporters will not get energized by an Obama ticket otherwise.

  • Whobody

    We’re possibly witnessing division between conservative and moderate on the Republican side as well this election season. Only the Republicans didn’t have a heated primary election to emphasize and perpetuate that divide.

  • Babs

    I’d agree with you on that, Whobody, except that once the general election heats up and Obama is the candidate going against McCain I don’t think it will be a factor. Simply because Obama is viewed as the far left liberal, republicans will feel less likely to point to McCain as either moderate or conservative. Moderates will be happy with McCain and conservatives will run screaming away from the liberal. The small percentage of the ones who don’t vote for McCain will vote for whatever insignificant third party candidate is on the ballot, and complain for the next four years until it starts all over again. 🙂

  • Stalin


    I agree with that, but by alienating conservatives, McCain is losing out on a good chunk of change… I’m going to have a really hard time opening the check book for him and there are millions more just like me.

  • Babs

    Well, Stalin, I don’t quite understand how he’s alienating conservatives – I’m apparently not one, I suppose. So I’ll just say I wish you would read my post from this morning on the “green” thread. That’s all I can say about the conservative/moderate thing. 🙂