Finally: The true impact of Obama WV's loss

[rocktivity]

Because Hillary got 70% of the vote in VW, she shaved a grand total of one half of one point off the 86% of the vote she needs (in ALL FIVE of the remaining contests) to surpass Obama's pledged delegate count. Conversely, Obama will now need 133.5 delegates instead of 133 to get to 2025 (Hillary needs 305). And he's 25 pledged delegates away from clinching the delegate lead, whereas Hillary needs around 178.

In other words, WV was a blow that Obama could certainly afford to take--especially if he can manage to get around 37% of the of the vote in KY and PR.

:headbang:
rocknation

[islandmkl]

1. unbridled optimism will get us nowhere...

or somewhere, i'm thinking...

:toast:

[TahitiNut]

2. When Robert Byrd retires, Hillary can move to West VIrginia and put down roots.

:rofl:

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. That's not a bad idea

Because she is losing the New York voters right now and would have an easier fight in West Virginia.

[TahitiNut]

4. Jay Rockefeller might be a bit nervous with a viper in the nest, but it might work.

:hide:

[Swamp Rat]

11. Not a viper

:D

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. Great suggestion. Hillary can be Queen of the hard working white folks.

[paulk]

5. the last 4 Democratic Presidents who won the White House

won West Virginia.

I understand that all you smug Obama supporters are completely willing to write off states that Obama loses in the primaries - afterall, any state that rejects the Chosen One obviously isn't worthy anyway - but I would suggest that we won't know the "true impact" of the presumptive nominee's 41 point loss in West Virginia until the general election.

You know, that's the election where they elect the President?

[high density]

6. Nobody is writing off states but the Clinton campaign

And Clinton winning WV in November is far from guaranteed, despite her great showing in this primary. This logic of Democrat Wins WV therefore Democrat is President is not valid by any means.

Maybe next time we should have WV take the place of IA if that state is so damn important to all of the Democrats.

[rocktivity]

7. Dean doesn't call it the FIFTY-STATE strategy for nothing

and since it got us the majority of congress in '06, it's a gamble that most of us are willing to take. And may I remind you that Hillary has lost TWICE as many states?

:headbang:
rocknation

[paulk]

14. the "fifty state strategy" is just another slogan

and we all know how much the Obama folks love slogans...

Dean never said his fifty state strategy was going to bring results as quickly as the '06 election - or even '08 - it is a long range plan meant to bring results over a long period of time. While the 50 state strategy can't hurt - saying that it is responsible for the current success of the Democratic Party leaves out a few more obvious factors. Most of the races we won in '06 were won because we ran conservative Democrats in conservative districts. That had a lot more to do with the DCCC strategy than any "fifty state strategy". And our gains in '08 are going to have a lot more to do with the complete fuck up the Republicans have managed under Bush than any genius of Howard Dean's.

Of course, rewriting history is part and parcel of the brave new world the Obamanation lives in, along with the "change we can all believe in" that Obama is going to bring to DC. It's almost like magic! Just wave the magic wand - give a good speech or two - and presto! It's all changed!

Perhaps you could explain what the fifty state strategy even has to do with this thread? How does it relate to Obama's blowout primary loss in WV? Is the "fifty state strategy going to somehow wave that aforementioned wand and win a state for Obama where the overwhelming majority of Democrats have flat out rejected him?

--------------

ps - when you use the argument that one candidate has won more states than the other - as if that somehow means anything - you are in effect saying that Wyoming, for instance, is the equivalent of NY or California. Any idiot knows this is not true. You wouldn't want people to think you were an idiot, would you?

[rocktivity]

18. I am in effect saying that we should do what has shown itself to WORK

Equating WY to CA would be idiotic thinking if it didn't get us into the White House, but it is HASN'T gotten us into the White House since 2000. As for fifty-state strategy being merely a slogan, check out this DU thread--I'm rewriting history?

:headbang:
rocknation

[paulk]

20. Wow! A DU thread quoted to back up an argument!

Now that's definitive! A thread by the biggest bleeping moron on this board, no less!

[Aloha Spirit]

10. They also won Nevada, Michigan, and New Mexico. All states where ONLY OBAMA polls better than McCain

[paulk]

15. of course when it gets mentioned around here

that McCain is winning the electoral college polling vs Obama while losing to Hillary - I get told that polls this far out don't mean anything...

[DearAbby]

12. This is the 21st Century...

times and things are a changin, even the way elections are won!

[paulk]

16. I thought that in 2000, I thought that in 2004

[Window]

8. There's that math again.

:kick:

[BenDavid]

13. you want math, then take this from an AA reporter.....

"Of the 29 primaries since New Hampshire from which delegates have been allocated,
Obama has won 15. But in doing so, he got a majority of the white votes in just five of
the 29 contests. And while winning three of the eight primaries held since March 4,
Obama won a majority of the white vote in only one — Vermont."
-- Dwayne Wickham, AA. "Obama's Vulnerability: White Voters"

the racial voting patterns of whites — and blacks — in this election year suggest that race, and racism, may well determine who will be this country's next president.




DeWayne Wickham writes on Tuesdays for USA TODAY... Clinton exposes Obama's vulnerability: white voters

[sniffa]

19. Too black, too strong

[harun]

17. Kentucky will be a bit of a blow as well, but that will be the last

primary state where we see the "Appalachian American" vote.