« Orlando Sentinel Profiles City's Black Gay Community | Main | Obama Wins Oregon and Majority of Pledged Delegates »

20 May 2008



The irony is that neither Clinton nor Obama would have the slightest chance of winning Kentucky or West Virginia in the general election.

Mel Smith

Either Rev. Wright or the people in those states ain't voting for a black man.

Rod Mc

LIBHOMO: You're absolutely wrong.

Bill Clinton won Kentucky and West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, and, both of these states are considered Hilary Clinton pickups if she were the GE candidate. Kentucky has a Democratic governor and West Virginia has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. Clinton also outpolls McCain in WV and is competitive in KY. OTOH, Obama has no chance in either state.

But if you want to talk about "which states Democrats won't win", those would be the caucus states such as Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, North Dakota, as well as Southern states like Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, etc.


Clinton does extremely well in Appalachia. She gets more votes in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky than her husband did. If Obama is the nominee, he is going to have to get at least some of these votes, he has not done well in any of the Appalachian states.

Robert Jones, Jr.

This win was anything but "stunning." More like, "Well,duh!"

Tony R

Mel, the "racism" is a simple excuse. I think Rod said a few months ago that continually using it was damaging Obama's cause and it seems the more it's thrown around in the media, the larger his loses become. There are plenty of reasons to vote for Obama and plenty to vote against him, least of which are color. I'm a black man (and my family is from Louisville) and I voted for Hillary, she's simply a stronger general election candidate and has stronger credentials on health care, the economy and national security, and the economy is very important in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia/Kentucky.e.

Unless you really think there are that many "racists" in the Democratic Party primary? If so, then Obama doesn't have a chance against the Republicans in the general election? I'm assuming there are millions more "racists" who haven't voted yet ....

Tony R

Robert, I don't know what "well, duh" means. But if you're saying it's no big deal that the media-annointed presumptive Democratic nominee has lost 5 of the last 7 primaries ... lost every high profile contest since March except for North Carolina ... and lost every single county in West Virginia ... and lost to a 250k vote margin in Kentucky ... and continues to lose signficant amounts of women ... yeah, "well duh." It doesn't sound very good for November.e.

Now, in Puerto Rico in two weeks, Obama will still get shut out by a landslide and the media will keep saying "keep moving, nothing to see here."

A Ronald

Libhomo, West Virginia voted for the Democratic president in 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992 and 1996. So even Dukakis managed to connect with coal miners but Kerry and Gore could not. If Clinton were the nominee, she would absolutely win.

Kentucky voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. It also has a Democratic governor and a half million more registered Democrats.

Rod's point is excellent. These are states we can win that we've won before, and, should be able given the economy. We won't win them with the Obama campaign and its media fan club writing them off and dismissing its residents. Thats always how Republicans rack up wins in all the rural and smaller states.

FWIW, according to the polls, Obama is having problems in New Jersey and Massachusetts. Those are the brightest blue states. Who'd have thunk it?


I thought Kentucky and West Virginia were largely white, rural populations. Wouldnt they much more easily appeal to Clinton more than Obama? I fail to see the big news here. This is one reason why Hillary stayed in the race (and rightfully so). She was going to win these states big.

In other news, Obama wins by 20% in Oregon.

Derrick Foss

FF, Kentucky is larger than Oregon. And, if I may quote you, "I fail to see the big news here." Oregon is largely affluent, well educated and large college vote. "Wouldnt they much more easily appeal to Obama more than Clinton?"

Oregon also reliably votes Democratic in every presidential election. Even Dukakis won here. I think a Democrat winning a 250,000 vote margin in a state like Kentucky that we USED TO WIN and CAN WIN as as opposed to a SMALLER victory in a state we WILL WIN

And the Oregon results are in another post entitled "Obama Wins Oregon and Majority of Pledged Delegates." Of course, you and other Obama Kool-Aid drinkers never seem to make your way into ANY PRO OBAMA POST. That's been happening for months.

I think it's very interesting that Obama is declared the nominee for months and is continually rejected by large segments of the electorate. He's only lost 5 of the last contests, and, almost every wing state he has contested, except for Virginia and Wisconsin and that was in wayyyyy back in February.

Rod Mc

FF: There is a separate post devoted to the Oregon results, which happened later in the evening.

According to CNN, Obama won Oregon by 102,000 votes. Clinton won Kentucky by 250,000 votes. Clinton won 51 delegates last night, Obama won 35. Of course, Obama is much further closer to the finish line, but, clearly, Clinton was the big winner last night.

I wouldn't discount rural voters, and, if anything, the Obama campaign may want to try to adopt Clinton's suburban/rural strategy in the fall. In almost every contest, the Obama campaign relies on city/subuurban voters. You can't win in November without appealing to middle America. Just ask Al Gore or John Kerry.


THe problem is that these white, blue collar, uneducated voters are RACIST. They will never vote for a black man and they have said it to pollers outside the election centers. Hillary and her people are using this to their advantage by saying he can't win blue collar whites. She really means these idiot racists will never vote for him. She really is doing major harm to him and the party.


New ruulz: "Racists" are white people who do not vote for Obama. "Non racists" are white people who do vote for Obama.

The "racist" charge has now become pure racebaiting. Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is accused of being a racist. It's disgusting and pathetic. I didn't vote for Obama because he's not experienced and I hate the racebaiting campaign pushed by his supporters. And I'm black.

Rod Mc

JESUS: This is your first comment. Please stop racebaiting, and, defining politicians, millions of voters or entire states is certainly racebaiting. Stop it.

The exit polls in KY, WV, OH and PA showed people at all income levels and education were not voting for Obama. It's obviously a lot more than race, obviously he just doesn't appeal to many people on personality or issues. Actually, you and other Obama supporters who continually cry "racism" every time Obama loses a contest sound ridiculous and make Obama look bad.

Robert Jones, Jr.

And yet, no one talks about the Hilary supporters who cry sexism. Like Geraldine Ferraro who says she might not vote for Obama in November because he's sexist.

Okay, just so that I understand the rules: wholesame accusations of sexism are okay, but not wholesale accusations of racism--even after voters interviewed said they'd never vote for a black guy because America's "not ready" for that.

Yeah. Okay.

Rod Mc

ROBERT: You're being argumentative. This post never said anything about sexism or racism, but, as usual, any Obama loss automatically becomes a referendum on "racism." This was simply a post about HRC's Kentucky win, and, as usual, the Clinton obsessives come to unload about any and everything.

Just as an fyi, the Obama Oregon post remains without any comments at all.

FWIW, Geraldine Ferraro (and many others) criticized specific media bias and treatment of Clinton, not blaming losing entire contests on "sexism". That's a big difference. But Ferraro can vote for whoever she wants, it's her vote. Were you complaining when many "progressive" bloggers, black talk radio hosts, and, people on this page and other blogs said they wouldn't vote for Clinton or would possibly vote for McCain? I don't think you and many others were complaining.


Robert and Jesus, I have a question. What are you so angry about?

I'm reading your comments and they mirror many comments from Obama supporters across the blogs. You seem genuinely upset and outraged that some people choose not to vote for to Obama, on the issues, and believe Clinton is the more capable candidate. Regardless of her chances at the nomination, it seems you cannot comprehend that many voters are simply more comfortable with Clinton on the economy or national security.

The amount of vitriol is astounding. Obama is your candidate. He is poised to win the nomination. But you're still ranting and raving like Clinton is doing something to Obama. What are you so angry about? And are you going to be so bitter for the next several months? I'm trying to understand because I supported Clinton and will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I have no animosity whatsoever. Please explain why you're "winning" but you're still so upset.

Brandon Jax

Let me echo ATL Kid's question. Robert, where does your anger come from? Are you more interested in seeing Clinton lose than Obama win? Are you frustrated because she keeps winning contests by very big margins?

Clinton had a very good night. Obama had a very good night. I look at the Obama post, which is just as positive, and lists just as much exit pol data and a nice quote, and there are NO COMMENTS. I come here and its the usual racebaiting, conspiracy theories, and Clnton Derangement Syndrome. It's very sad that many of you don't understand Clinton voters or why Hillary keeps winning (even though she is "losing") and why Obama keeps "losing", even though he is winning. Good luck in November.

Please explain to me why Clinton wining by such a huge margin upsets you and you have no comment whatsoever about Obama's big win in Oregon.


while I am pro-Obama, I am certainly not anti-Clinton. she would be just as good a candidate as Barack.

I am surprised that Rod does categorize Hillary as the "big winner" when she won the state she was supposed to by a large margin and Obama won the state he was supposed to by a large margin. Just because Obama has an almost insurmountable lead doesnt mean he should just win every state from here on out. he's still going up against a qualified candidate.

Obama's and Clinton's message are very similar and have many of the same views. i think you would be hard pressed to find many Dems who are voting for Obama or Clinton because of their viewpoints. they are voting for who they identify with more or who they think can get the job done or who inspires them more or who they think can beat McCain.

certainly there are people who will not vote for a black person. there are people who will not vote for a woman. those people DO exist. big surprise. i dont think it's as pervasive an issue as some think although IMO it's likely you'll find more people like that in less educated states.

I think Barack has a hard time appealing to middle America because Hillary does it so well. He's running against a good candidate who has more appeal. I dont think Barack is doing a bad job there, it's just that Hillary is doing a good job with it.

Barack more or less does have the nomination wrapped up. So he can focus his time on determining who his VP should be. He can focus his time on fundraising for the fall. He can focus his time on showing why he is the better candidate over McCain. I dont think keeping the margin close in WV or KY was a top priority for him.

The Republicans must be relishing the in-fighting amongst Democrats who still cant find a candidate to back. They spew hate and attack the other candidate and cant unify themselves and cant wake up to realize they have TWO excellent, qualified candidates for president instead of getting stuck with candidate like Kerry or Dukakis.

Robert Jones, Jr.

LOL @ anger.

I'm not angry. I'm not one of those blind Obama supporters dumb enough to cut their noses to spite their faces (or Clinton supporters dumb enough to do that same) who will vote AGAINST their own economic and social interests simply because the candidate of their choice didn't win the nomination. If Clinton is the nominee in November, she will get my vote. I prefer Obama, but I will certainly settle for Clinton.

As for race-baiting: am I imagining that a significant number of people pre-polled and exit-polled in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky said that race was a major factor in their decision, with some even saying that they'd never vote for an African-American and that Clinton got their vote because she was a "real American"?

While I won't dare accuse every white (or black) voter of such a dispicable mentality, I think it's intellectually disingenuous to imagine that race isn't playing a major role--particularly when the racists have been quite vocal with their opinions.

Robert Jones, Jr.

As to my first comment about Rod's word choice:

I simply found it odd that he'd use the word "stunning" to describe Clinton's victory when she had been predicted to win Kentucky by a large margin for as long as I can remember. So if anything, it should have been characterized as "as predicted," the complete opposite of "stunning."

I'm honestly not trying to be "argumentative." I'm simply trying to be honest about my thoughts and feelings.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad