Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
no Democratic president has won the White House since 1916, without winning West Virginia
If Obama can't win West Virginia tomorrow,what makes him think he will win West Virginia in the general election or let's say the same thing about Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, & Kentucky. He must be able to win over the blue collar white working middle class voters and those voters over 65, if he wants to win the general election.....
I think he will lose the general election, if the super delegates give it to him.
Also, he needs michigan and florida in his column in the general election which likely will not happen, since he does not agree to let the delegates and the votes in those states be counted.
Advertisement
Comments (28)
Jimmy Carter did in 1976. So, what you're really saying is that Bill Clinton won West Virginia twice. For the record, Dukakis also won West Virginia in 1988 and still lost. So, it's neither sufficient (Dukakis), nor necessary (Carter).
May 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Ben,
The quote from HillaryClinton08 is a crude generalization of an extremely carefully parsed claim made by Senator Clinton herself. According to the Clinton News Network, she says that no Democratic candidate has gone on to win the GE without "first" winning WV.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/12/campaign.wrap/index.html
To my knowledge, this claim actually holds true if you apply two completely opposite logical standpoints.
Carter: True because he lost the WV Democratic primary, even though he carried WV in the GE.
Kennedy: True because he lost WV in the GE, but (barely) carried it in the primary.
May 12, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woops... sorry about that. Got it backwards. Obviously Carter lost WV in the GE.
Sheesh. I have confused myself trying to figure out a way her statement can possibly make sense.
May 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignore Ben. He has a habit of relying too much on facts. You were saying?
May 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to play the "never" game, let's start with:
A woman has never won the nomination of the Democratic party for president...
A woman has never won the presidency of the United States...
What makes you think Hillary can? By your logic above, if it's never happened in the past, it will never happen in the future.
May 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be fair, here.
A "black" man has never won the presidency of the United States, either, so Obama can't win.
Someone born outside the United States has never won the presidency of the United States, so McCain can't win.
Ergo, the next president of the United States will be Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, or Bob Barr.
May 12, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gravelmentum!!!
May 12, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There goes another windshield.
May 12, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Dole won the majority of white votes nation wide in 1996. Guess who won the contest. So much for Annie Yokely's White Power Points Panderoma.
May 12, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey it was written by HillaryClinton08 - - so so much for a basis in reality.
May 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm . . . Ben's data point does seem to screw up the title of this post.
But I've got a more reliable pattern for you: No Democratic candidate has ever won the Presidency without first winning the Democratic nomination.
I fear that's going to make it hard for Hillary to win in November.
May 12, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think at this point, Opus is right -- it's Mike Gravel or no one.
May 12, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Ben read the map wrong, as the red and blue are reversed for Dem/GOP back then.
May 12, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! You are correct. It doesn't help that right above the map they had Carter in blue and Ford in red, but that within the map they used the colors in the opposite way! (Georgia should've been a clue.)
May 12, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Expect a flood a superdelegates after WV...for Gravel!
May 12, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be excellent news? For Hillary?
May 12, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama is planning to win W. Virginia in the GE. Also, working class people and those over the age of 65 do live in every state in the Union. Michigan is also at play in November.
Oh, and since neither candidate can win without the support of SDs, I think you're being disingenuous by claiming that the SDs will "give" the election to Obama. He's leading in pledged delegates and that will not change. What you seem to want is for SDs to disregard everything and "give" the primary election to Clinton.
May 12, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's also now leading in SDs -- and that won't change, either :)
May 12, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, say Obama loses WV but puts New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada into play not a bad trade off. However Clinton wins WV and loses Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada and possibly sets the table for a McCain win.
Then there is the issue is WV really voting for Hillary or against Obama in the primary. My sense it will stay red no matter who is on the ticket this November.
May 12, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason to believe Clinton can win WV in the general election. That state is solid red. She is way behind McCain in the polls there. She's just ahead of Obama in the Dem primary.
I'm not saying WV is a state that "doesn't matter" -- I'm just saying that if Clinton wins the primary there, it means nothing re her electability, either there or nationwide, in the GE.
May 12, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even just trading WV for CO is enough to make this argument evaporate. And Colorado is definitely not Hillary country.
May 12, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, it's neither sufficient (Dukakis), nor necessary (Carter).
Precisely. Kerry lost WV, but winning its 5 electoral votes would not have saved him. It's misleading to say that WV is any sort of lynchpin or indicator.
When was WV the deciding state in any presidential election? When could it have been the deciding the state if it gone the other way?
May 12, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As we all know...
Obama is NOT a "black man" he is actually molado.
Clinton will make ANY argument that might benefit her campaign. It wont work. Obama IS the nominee. We await the official confirmation of this FACT. Peace.
May 12, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your last five sentences are absolutely right. But the last word of your second sentence is spelled "mulatto", not "molado". And it's an archaic and not very respectful way to describe people of mixed race.
There's nothing wrong with calling Obama a "black man." He describes himself as black. (As do almost all African-European mixed people in this culture.)
May 12, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you figured that out. I thought 'molado' was a Guatemalan dish I had never heard of.
May 12, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it is. Sounds tasty!
May 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? We're in the 21st century now.
May 12, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh...what a pre-9/11 mindset you have.
May 12, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment