MyDD :: Hillary would lose WV to McCain

Hillary would lose WV to McCain - big

by TL, Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:48:26 AM EST

Yet another reminder, if any were needed, that winning a state in the Democratic primary does not mean a candidate would win it in the general. Hillary Clinton is going to roll up big majorities in WV and KY - against Barack Obama. If the contest were against John McCain, though, she'd lose by double digits.

R2000: Clinton Leads By Wide Margin in West Virginia
A new Research 2000 poll in West Virginia finds Sen. Hillary Clinton leading Sen. Barack Obama, 58% to 31%, in tomorrow's Democratic primary.

However, in general election match ups both Democrats get crushed by Sen. John McCain. McCain leads Clinton, 53% to 41%, and tops Obama, 58% to 33%.

All the usual caveats apply, because you can't be sure the election will still look this way in November. But at a minimum, it means there is no evidence Clinton is a favorite to win either of these states in the fall.

Also: Please be clear. I am not saying these states don't count. I'm saying they don't count more than other states. She'll win these states, and they're to her credit. But she lost other states, and those are to Obama's credit. Net, he wins.

Tags: election 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 47 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Tell Me about it! - AMEN! (2.00 / 3)

Yup, tell me about it!

We have a nominee who was chosen due to winning

North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Georgia, Nebraska, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina.

Not a single one of the above will flip blue even if Ronald Reagan came back to life as a Democrat.

Preach on ! Believe me, We All know!

Amen!

by libdemusa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:00:08 AM EST

Re: Tell Me about it! - AMEN! (none / 0)

;-) nice.

Fight for Democrats in Congress.

by owl06 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tell Me about it! - AMEN! (none / 0)

Obama is competitive in North Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, and South Carolina. Surprised?

by walterg on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Would Lose Georgia Big Too... (2.00 / 2)

...Despite the fact that he won the presidential preference primary by a margin of 66.4% to Sen. Clinton's 31.1%.

Rasmussen Reports has a poll out showing John McCain cruising towards carrying Georgia's 15 electoral votes in November with him receiving 53% to Obama's 39% [Source: 5/8/2008 Rasmussen Reports article ["Election 2008: Georgia Presidential Election"].

Essentially, you're making the same point that supporters of Hillary Clinton have made throughout this Democratic primary season; that Obama winning states like Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, et al doesn't mean that he'll carry a single one of those states in November.

Except now, you're using that argument to dismiss the results of the West Virginia primary tomorrow because the candidate you support is about to get crushed.

by andrewalker08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:00:23 AM EST

Re: Obama Would Lose Georgia Big Too... (2.00 / 1)

Well, no.

I'd make an argument about his likely fate in the general election based on national polling numbers, which show him in the same place as HRC relative to McCain.

This is a specific response to people who are looking at the likely primary election results in WV and arguing that they make HRC a wonderfully strong candidate in WV for the general election (or among white working class voters generally). I've seen a number of posters say we can't nominate Barack because no Dem candidate has won the presidency without WV since Wilson. That's not true for two reasons - a Democrat doesn't "have" to win WV, and there's no reason to believe that Hillary is a strong candidate for WV or KY in the general.

She's winning those voters in some states against Barack. But imagining that she's got strong appeal to Reagan Democrats in the general is wishful thinking.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

she does have a strong appeal (2.00 / 3)

to Reagan democrats just like Bill did in his elections.
You are denying reality.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:45:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she does have a strong appeal (none / 0)

Um, no.

Clinton lost white men to Dole by 11 points in 1996.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elec tions/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

And there were plenty of articles talking about the reasons, e.g.:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9805E6D7113FF935A35753C1A96095826 0

Unfortunately, our party has been bleeding white men for a long time. I am hopeful we can turn that tide, but you can't say either Clinton has a sterling record of doing that.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:05:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she does have a strong appeal (2.00 / 1)

Yes, CLinton lost 11 points to white men against Gore.

And Obama will lose by 33 points among white men against McCain

And he should lose white women votes as well.

nice

by libdemusa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:17:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The people Obama needs to be worried about are (2.00 / 1)

White WOMEN, not white men. I agree that white men are not a huge reliable voting block for Democrats. White women ARE.

This particular white woman will most likely vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but it will be little more than a strong-anti-McCain vote for me and for my sons. I feel zero enthusiasm for Obama as a candidate or as a potential President. He leaves me stone-cold. Sorry, but I'm being brutally honest, it is a reality which Obama and his supporters must face. You have a lot of work to do if Obama is the nominee. Not everyone is drawn in by Obama's charms, promises and political skills, not by a longshot.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:26:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she does have a strong appeal (none / 0)

but Clinton came close in White OVERALL vote male and female, and was in the margin of error, and this stands up when you look at that exit poll, it shows Perot taking equally from both candidates when asked vote in a two way race and you read the vertical Perot column. Therefore, thats the difference in Clinton and current nominees. We dont' expect to win white males, but we should try to get close to whites OVERALL women + males, unlike Kerry and Gore, who got blown out by double digits in white males+women.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she does have a strong appeal (none / 0)

Wow a Clinton supporter claiming someone else is denying reality...Irony...such delicous irony.

Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!

by RockvilleLiberal2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not according to this (2.00 / 1)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

West Virginia
Clinton beats McCain 47% to 42%
Obama loses to McCain 35% to 53%

Your diary is an odd argument for an Obama supporter to be making since MOST of the states he has won are reliably red in November?

Seriously, I am curious... what is the Obama supporters reply when you look at these 2 electoral projections, does this not give you some pause?:
Obama v. McCain
Obama 237 / McCain 290 (Tie 11)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May12.html

Clinton v. McCain
Clinton 280 / McCain 241 (Tie 17)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May12.html

I know that a lot will change between now and November, but exactly which states are Obama supporters counting on flipping? Clinton doesn't need to flip any, her path to electoral victory is clear.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST

Re: Not according to this (2.00 / 1)

I don't know that outfit, but there are a number showing Obama in a position that's as strong as Clinton or stronger, measured either by electoral votes or total polling numbers.

As for swing states where he's stronger than she is how about IA, MN, WI, CO, VA, NC, OR, and WA?

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The link I gave already included (none / 0)

IA, MN, CO, OR, and WA in Obama's column. He loses 237 to 290.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May12.html

As for WI, yes it is possible, but only 10 electoral votes.

I don't see VA or NC happening.

You're better off looking at OH, IN, MI, SC, NM, FL. These are ties or "weak GOP".

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The link I gave already included (none / 0)

Virginia is going for the Democrats - you can take that to the bank. The grassroots, activist base in Northern Virginia will far outweigh any of the GOP based organizers from the southwest area of the state. Add in Jim Webb, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine (three extremely popular democratic politicians in Virginia) all campaigning hard of Obama, and he wins the state. Take that to the bank.

Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!

by RockvilleLiberal2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not according to this (2.00 / 1)

what I suspect is that the party is so afraid of African Americans being pissed off that they are wiling to throw the election away rather than chose the candidate who can win in November.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not according to this (2.00 / 1)

The party?!

The majority of voters have chosen Obama. You're kidding, right? The majority of voters have chosen Obama because we believe he is the better candidate.

Do you honestly believe Joe Schmo going to the polls is basing his vote on not pissing off a group of people?

by PSUdan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not according to this (2.00 / 1)

no, the majority of democrats have voted for Clinton. He won in early cross over states with independents and republicans. He no longer even dominates those groups.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:46:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not according to this (2.00 / 1)

Democrats have voted for Hillary, the indies have put Obama over the top, though currently in the last few, he's been losing big or winning slightly with indies and losing republicans.

by Jaz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not according to this (none / 0)

Yeah because Caucuses don't count because Hillary didn't win there. She is not the popular choice - she is the 2nd most popular choice -- by any metric you choose except wishing.

Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!

by RockvilleLiberal2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary would lose WV to McCain - big (none / 0)

It is a long time between now and November... polling data in the Spring is not a reliable measure of what will happen in the Fall.

Actually, polling data is unreliable period...

McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!

by JenKinFLA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST

Good reality check but consider another angle (2.00 / 1)

I think the dismissals of the other's victories - dismissals from either camp - in states the GOPers will carry is far off the mark. We are not in the GE; in the nominating phases all the states count, or should count, regardless of their format and regardless of how the state will vote in November. Democrats in KY are as valued, in my book, as any Democrat anywhere and deserve to have their input.

But what KY and WV will confirm, without likely changing the eventual outcome, is that Sen. Obama has a challenge in several battleground states, states our nominee should or must win. I mean Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular, which border the two states in question and which have comparable demographics, at least to a significant degree with the non-trivial exception that both have major cities where Obama will perform strongly, as opposed to only Louisville among the two upcoming states.

So getting crushed in those states in a Democratic primary indicates Sen. Obama, should he become the nominee, will have a lot of work to do in those two crucial states, and these upcoming elections will merely to confirm that reality.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:14:15 AM EST

Re: Good reality check but consider another angle (none / 0)

Thanks. I wholeheartedly agree that they count and I wish he were stronger there.

I'm responding specifically to people claiming that WV is essential and that HRC would be a strong candidate against McCain in those states in the general. There isn't any evidence of that.

I do hope that the nominee works hard in those states and tries to get as many votes as possible, but if we do win those states they won't be giving us the crucial margin that gets us over the top. It'll mean we've won in a landslide.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:18:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

regardless of the polls now (2.00 / 1)

Clinton has the ability to make up ground in WV that Obama does not. More important are OH and FL. She will win them and Obama will not. He also risks losing PA.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:16:27 AM EST

Re: regardless of the polls now (2.00 / 1)

Obama could win Ohio in a number of ways. IF he's the nominee, for example, he could start by choosing Ted Strickland as his VP. I also think he would look different after the party pulls together. He's been slammed by both Rs and half the Democratic party for a while now. That would change. And some of the things that hurt him specifically in that primary have now moved past. We have a little more context on that Austan Goolsbee flap, for example. If his opponent is McCain, not Clinton, I think McCain's lobbying connections would let him Obama a favorable story on issues that matter to Ohioans.

That said, there are other states where he's stronger than Clinton, and can expand the map in ways she can't. CO, VA, an outside chance at NC; stronger in OR, WA, MN, WI.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

demographics (none / 0)

and the GE will not be a caucus. Obama can not win and those are the two main reasons. He lost the working class vote by his own hand. He is not going to win it back.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: regardless of the polls now (none / 0)

She won't win WV and she wouldn't win FL.

I believe they both would win OH and PA.

by PSUdan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

please don't spout shit (none / 0)

it is such a waste of time.

In fact she is winning OH, PA and FL against McCain and has been for months. Obama has been losing them for months and just recently is doing better in PA.

On the other hand some polls have Clinton winning WV against MeCain and NO POLLS have Obama winning WV against McCain.

PA, OH and FL could all go to Clinton, only PA has a remote chance of going to Obama. It's all in the demographics.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Take your own advice (none / 0)

and stop spouting shit...you have no evidence that he cannot win their votes in the GE.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Michigan (none / 0)

I think Obama stands a real good chance of losing MI in November.

Flipping MI and PA while still losing FL and OH is an electoral college wipe out for BO. Caveat of November being a long way off is hereby stated!

by Newport News Dem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL And Obama Would Win N.C., Georgia and S.C.? (none / 0)

The states that delivered Obama the likely nomination sure won't deliver him the election.

by hypopg on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:22:15 AM EST

You missed the point (2.00 / 1)

You missed the point. I'm not saying he would win those states. (Although he would have a real shot at NC, not the other two.)

I'm responding to the many, many, many posts from Clinton supporters saying a Dem must win WV to win the general and that HRC is a strong candidate there in the fall. No.

If this victory gave her the margin in pledged delegates, of course it would matter - the same way Obama's margins in other states matter. Neither more nor less than the results of other states.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

West Virginia is 5 electoral votes (none / 0)

Even if she lost WV to McCain, she still beats him.

Again, here's how:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May12.html

I'd LOVE to see an electoral map which says, HERE'S HOW OBAMA BEATS MCCAIN! (with polls to back it up). I haven't seen that yet at all? All these supposed swing states get tossed around as "winnable" for Obama but I just don't see the proof of that happening?

I live in a reliably blue state (NY) and I've watched with horror for too many elections as the Democrats lost. This year was ours to lose. Obama was supposedly going to create a country where there were "no red states and blue states". I hope his supporters can at the very least admit that is not happening? This is going to be a "squeaker".

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: West Virginia is 5 electoral votes (none / 0)

There is no path to an Obama victory in November. I have already listened to the idiots on msnbo saying how Hillary has to save him by campaigning for him and winning back the working class vote for him.

IMO, it is not her job nor her obligation. She will be blamed for his loss anyway.

Keep hoping the Super Delegates get their brains in gear and chose Hillary's much stronger argument in August.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: West Virginia is 5 electoral votes (none / 0)

Ah, 5 itty bitty EC votes.....the ones that saddled the world with W in 2000!

by Newport News Dem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: West Virginia is 5 electoral votes (none / 0)

Actually, Gore lost (and I use the term loosely) by 4 votes - if he had won NH, FL wouldn't even have mattered.

by AnnC on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: West Virginia is 5 electoral votes (none / 0)

You ask, you get.

Well, this isn't quite what you want, but I'm trying to keep my job :)

Here's poblano's site. Poblano, you may recall, is the person who's predicted the last two primary contests better than any pollster - and his projection shows Obama doing better than Hillary.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Unfortunately, he also shows both of them losing to McCain... hopefully that changes.

On the national polls - which, I know, aren't terribly meaningful, but in general it's much easier to win EVs if you also lead in total votes - nearly every one shows Obama and Clinton faring about the same in a matchup against McCain. If you really insist I'll go collect them, but you can view them yourself at Pollster.com.

I don't understand the gloom and doom.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I ask, I get? (none / 0)

You're showing me a poll-consolidator who you think it reliable and predictive... and he shows Obama losing soundly to McCain.

Sorry but... that doesn't make me feel any better?

We do agree on one thing... when you say "hopefully that changes".

The doom and gloom... from where I sit we are casting aside the candidate who was more electable and would make the far better President. These are gloomy days as far as I'm concerned.

"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008

by twinmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I ask, I get? (none / 0)

I guess my point is, if you want to rely on the polls, nominating Hillary should make you at least as gloomy if not moreso.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, excuse me, YOU miss the point of WV (2.00 / 1)

and KY.

Clinton may or may not put WV into play, and very likely won't put KY into play.

The problem is what overwhelming losses for Obama in those states reinforces about his appeal in the general election across the white working class demographic: namely, that he simply can't for the life of him win them over to him -- not even after he has what appears to be an insurmountable lead in the race for the nomination.

No amount of money, no amount of media fawning, and no amount of inevitability can pull these voters into his column. They simply and obviously can't stomach him.

The thing about WV and KY is that they won't have Obama's terrible performance among white working class voters buried in some exit poll. Instead, because those are essentially the entirety of the voting electorate in those states, they will be exposed as overall margins in the primary vote itself.

And everybody who can and will use thinking processes understands that Obama can't win the GE without this segment of voters. They are the swing voters in every important swing state.

by frankly0 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:49:23 AM EST

Re: No, excuse me, YOU miss the point of WV (none / 0)

"They simply and obviously can't stomach him."

They prefer Clinton to Obama in the primary. I'm not convinced they'll prefer McCain to Obama in the general because I can think of lots of reasons Obama will appeal to them. Once half the Democratic party stops banging on him, I think his numbers there will improve.

by TL on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What you miss (none / 0)

Obama can't win white working class Appalachian voters. Guess what? Clinton won't win them in November either (especially the men).

Unions are gone in WV and KY. White working class voters vote on culture now, and while that may help Clinton over Obama it will do nothing for her against McCain.

by elrod on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you miss (none / 0)

You can try to marginalize the white working class voters in WV and KY all you want, but Obama's serious problem is that the white working class voters in WV and KY are only all too similar to the white working class voters in OH, PA, MI, and FL, and elsewhere east of the Mississippi. Just as the voters in WV and KY are going to vote along cultural lines, so also will a decisive number of voters in the major swing states -- as they have done in election after election in the past.

When was the last time Obama had anything resembling a decent showing with white working class voters? Not since the Rev. Wright and similar controversies came to the fore (and who can doubt but that if Obama hadn't been able to hide those skeletons in his closet until late in the game, he would now be well behind Clinton?)

And the great majority of electoral votes in this nation are east of the Mississippi -- a fact that won't change for many decades. And when you throw in the the Southwest and California, where Obama can't win the growing Hispanic vote, you have a recipe for a creating a "coalition" that could lose for decades.

by frankly0 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reality check (none / 0)

I've said this for a long time. West Virginia is no longer a swing state. It's a red state and getting redder every year. Why? The unions are gone now. They propelled Dukakis to a win in 1988 and Carter in 1980. But they're gone now.

WV votes on culture now and nothing else...actually the economic message WV wants is coal and more coal and neither Democrat wants that.

This isn't about white working class voters in general. This is about West Virginia white working class voters.

Hillary Clinton can morph herself into a Buchanan type but it won't fly in the general election against McCain. The social conservatives were not exactly enamored with the Clinton years.

by elrod on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM EST

Re: Hillary would lose WV to McCain - big (none / 0)

Poblano, a strong Obama supporter and one of the most astute amateur number crunchers on the net, gives Hillary a 62% chance of carrying West Virginia in the fall (and Obama a 6% chance of carrying the state). Maybe those numbers will be adjusted after he takes into account this latest poll.

Poblano also has Hillary with a slightly greater chance of beating McCain than Obama has for the first time since I've been following his site, but, again, that changes day to day.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

by markjay on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:14:32 PM EST

Assumptions (none / 0)

If you are assuming Obama can not get the voters who voted for Clinton to vote for him then you should assume that Clinton will not get Obama's supporters to vote for her. Obama cannot win without white woman, Clinton can not win without African Americans. So I guess we should just concede to John McCain and call off the election.

Soon the primary will be over and the Clintons will through their support 110% behind Obama. In a few months 99% of voters will have totally forgotten the primaries. They will have moved on and will be focusing on the General. By then the polling being done today will be as relevant as the polling showing Hillary as unbeatable 3 months ago.

by hankg on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST

what the hell are you talking about? (none / 0)

Clinton BEATS McCain in West Virginia outside the margin of error, and Obama gets blown away. She also wins the election, something Obama doesn't do.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:57:35 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.