Exit polls have Hillary Rodham Clinton beating Barack Hussein Obama by a margin of two to one in Kentucky. CNN, MNBC, and Fox News have all called the state for Clinton thus far.Hillary Clinton has won the Kentucky Democratic primary, FOX News projects.
Exit polls indicate that the New York senator is winning by at least 2-to-1. She is capturing almost every demographic group, doing particularly well among the large group of white, working-class voters in the state.
Votes are still being counted in Oregon, which also is holding its primary, and early returns are not expected until later in the night. Polls closed Tuesday in Kentucky at 7 p.m. ET.
CNN reports:
Exit polls from Kentucky suggest a deep division among Democrats.
Two-thirds of Clinton's supporters there said they would vote Republican or not vote at all rather than for Obama, according to the polls.
Forty-one percent of Clinton supporters said they'd cast their vote for John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and 23 percent said they would not vote at all.
Just 33 percent said they would back Obama in the general election, according to the polls.
Hillary Clinton is now pushing the idea that the popular vote should govern who becomes the Democratic nominee. Democrats should be careful about denouncing this logic as it was the same used to argue that Gore should have won in 2000 despite that he lost the electoral college vote. Clinton is saying that "it is the math, not the map" that should count.
We shall see.
Posts
8 comments:
It's almost bizarre how some Dems are reacting to Hillary's latest massive victory in Kentucky, just following another massive victory, and come-from-behind victory in Indiana, by saying that Obama has more delegates won when people knew even less about his than they do now and who (inexplicably) people were dropping like flies during his rallies, and he was responding as if rehearsed.
I have to laugh at the naivety of the Dems and Obama's MSM cheerleaders, who, after every recent massive Hillary victory claim that the "race is over".
They seem to be genetically predisposed to electing a general election loser despite all the signs, and probably despite their own better judgment.
Go, Dems, go!
Please disregard my previous post since I hit the send button accidentally before reviewing it.
It's almost bizarre how some Dems are reacting to Hillary's latest massive victory in Kentucky, just following another massive victory in West Virginia, a recent come-from-behind victory in Indiana, a victory in Dem-winable big states like California and New York, all part of a trend since the February Obama wins, by trying to justify BHO's destiny for nomination based on total delegate count, mostly won when the Dems knew even less about Obama than they do now.
Only a few scant months ago, people were "inexplicably" dropping like flies during Obama's rallies, physically overwhelmed by his messianic message of "hope" and "change".
Dutifully, he responded on each occasion, as if on queue, on camera, rehearsed and trained as an EMT specialist - a humane and compassionate saviour.
Only a few months ago, an Obama rally was like a 1960's Beatles redux with teenage girls: fainting, idolizing fans, some driving across the USA, and some making the sojourn even from foreign countries.
At one rally during the early primaries, the adoring crowd even reportedly applauded him for blowing his nose during a speech.
Anyone who thought of marketing "Obama Water" and who hasn't already cleaned up, has missed the boat, although I am sure that some trinket-salespeople have made a bundle on over-priced "Obama-mania" souvenirs.
I have to laugh at the naivety of the Dems and Obama's MSM cheerleaders, who, after every recent massive Hillary victory claim that "the race is over".
The MSM advice to Hillary after every one of her recent victories over Obama is to surrender to the person who voters seem to be turning against, her inexperienced opponent who can't seem to rally the support of his party despite his early wins and his widely proclaimed "destiny".
The Dems seem to be on a mission to nominate a general election loser despite all the warning signs and growing evidence of Obama's unelectabilty, and probably despite their own better judgment.
The Dems are in a quandary: will they nominate Obama based mostly on the puppy-love they gave him early in the primaries, or will they reverse their early exuberant enthusiasm?
Either way, it's going to be interesting to watch them self-destruct from here to November.
In fairness Kentucky is a solid Republican state. Unfortunately 20% voted on race. West Virginia also had a significant portion of voters site race as an issue. Rush Limbaugh and Operation Chaos were the only reason she won in Indiana. Most importantly today's polls have Obama with an 8 point lead over McCain taking away her argument about Obama not being electable. Florida and Michigan will be decided May 31 and with only 62 delegates remaining for Obama to clinch, it is unlikely that either state will impact the results. 3 more states left and Democrats will go through the motions.
At this point the only question for Hillary is will she be on Obama's ticket as VP. Likely the answer is no. I think Obama should pick either Bill Richardson or if he wants to prove that he is the unity candidate perhaps Colin Powell, Michael Bloomberg or Chuck Hagel would make good VP choices on the Obama ticket.
I am looking forward to June 3 when a direct McCain vs. Obama contest can take place with no side distractions.
***
Exit polls: Race helps Clinton in KY, not OR
17 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Exit polls show white support muscled Hillary Rodham Clinton to a solid victory in Kentucky's Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday. Race seemed to have far less of an effect in liberal Oregon, where Barack Obama was running strongly.
Surveys showed even college-educated whites backed Clinton strongly in Kentucky, where she got her usual strong backing from working-class whites. One in five white voters said race influenced their choice of a candidate — and those voters were strongly behind the New York senator.
But Obama was winning the white vote in Oregon — and was even splitting the votes of whites who have not finished college, a group Clinton usually wins easily.
Hardly any Oregon voters said race affected their candidate choice.
***
May 21, 2008, 1:01 am
White On White
She’s got her white voters. He’s got his. Her whites go to church every week. His whites are more secular. Her whites have dirt under their fingernails. His are more likely to be changing ink cartridges in the office. Her whites like the hard stuff. His whites will choose Oregon pinot.
It makes you want to scream: enough with the hierarchal rankings of white Democratic voters.
But what Tuesday’s stumble-to-the-finish-line vote showed is that this sort of regional race trumpeting is largely meaningless — unless put in the correct context for the general election.
Consider the media shorthand for both Kentucky and West Virginia, where Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by huge margins. These are hard-working, real Americans, the Clinton camp says, and a Democrat can’t win without them.
In fact, both West Virginia and Kentucky have gone against the national tide of the last 8 years and have been trending Republican. Also – and this needs to be said – a significant percentage of the voters in both those states have now indicated that they may not vote for a fellow Democrat simply because he’s black.
Pollsters know that people lie about race; voters rarely come out and say they will not vote for someone because he’s black. Instead, they say things like we’re hearing from West Virginia and Kentucky – that “race is a factor.”
In Kentucky, over 25 percent of Clinton supporters said race was a factor in their vote – about five times the national average for such a question. Clinton, if she really wanted to do something lasting, could ask her supporters why the color of a fellow Democrat’s skin is so important to their vote.
Now, consider the argument that a Democrat needs these states. In 2000, George Bush won West Virginia 52 to 46 percent. Four years later, he’d increased his margin to 56-43.
In Kentucky, Bush won 57-41 in 2000, and padded that to 60-40 four years later.
Appalachia, we now know, is Clinton’s heartland – but it does not resemble the Democratic landscape. If these are Democratic states, there’s some strange serum in the local brew at party headquarters.
On to Oregon, where Obama won by double digits. A bunch of chai tea sipping elitists, with zero body fat, living in hip lofts while working at Nike, yes? No. Well, they do like running, and tea. Oregon is one of the nation’s whitest states – just under 2 percent of residents are black – but rich it is not. The state is below the national average in both per capita income and median household income.
This suggests that Obama doesn’t have a white working class problem so much as a regional problem, in a place where Democrats won’t win anyway.
In Oregon, voters’ surveys show Obama essentially tied Clinton for the blue collar vote while running up a big victory.
And Oregon, unlike West Virginia and Kentucky, may actually be in play for the general election. Al Gore won it by barely 7,000 votes in 2000, a margin that went up to 60,000 votes in 2004. McCain’s advisers say he’s a perfect fit for the state – independent, somewhat maverick.
So, from a purely strategic point of view, the ability to win white blue-collar voters in an open-minded swing state is certainly more important than a solid red state. I would include Pennsylvania in that equation. Just weeks after all the talk of Obama’s problems in the Keystone state, most polls now show him beating McCain in the general election.
What happened in the last few weeks is that Appalachia, in a 24-7 media hothouse, skewed perception. We stared at it far too long, parsing it for meaning beyond its historic range and its hard prejudices.
The Gallup poll this week showed that the rest of the nation is closer to Oregon. Gallup’s daily national tracking poll of Democratic voters found Obama tied Clinton among white voters. He’s tied among people with no college. He’s actually leading – yes, leading! – with women. With the young, he’s leading 3-1. Clinton’s last demographic is women over 50.
So, for Democrats: hello life, goodbye Appalachia.
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/white-on-white/
***
National poll shows Obama leading McCain
May 21, 2008 12:48 PM
As Barack Obama closes in on the Democratic nomination, his prospects for November are looking up, a new poll indicates.
Obama, who was tied with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain last month in the same survey, now leads 48 percent to 40 percent, according to the Reuters/Zogby poll released today.
Obama builds his lead among independents -- 47 percent to 35 percent -- and also has an edge in who voters say would be better for the economy.
Despite losing four of the last six primaries over the last month to Hillary Clinton, Obama also leads McCain among some groups he has been losing to Clinton: Catholics, Jews, union households, and voters making less than $35,000 a year.
"Clearly voters are looking for change. Every problem Obama has had in consolidating his base and reaching to the center, John McCain has the same sort of problem," pollster John Zogby told Reuters.
"It's McCain's lead among voters over the age of 65 that is keeping him within shouting distance of Obama," he said.
The poll was conducted Thursday through Sunday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
D:
Do you understand how truly rare and astonishing it is for Obama, who supposedly has the nomination wrapped up, to continue to lose primaries as he gets closer to the convention. This is virtually unprecedented and it displays incredible weakness in him as a candidate.
Polls are fickle and temporary, Clinton and Giuliani can remind you of that.
Obama now owns the label of "appeasement" despite his crying about it. The fact that he was so offended about Bush's comments even though Bush was referring to Carter makes it funny.
Obama should shut about Kennedy meeting with Kruschev because that incident lead directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kruschev saw JFK as weak and decided to act on that hunch by stationing missiles in Cuba. JFK may have been weak, because he ended up compromising on Turkey, but was lucky enough to be viewed as willing to go to war over the incident that caused the Soviet leader to back down. Nevertheless, it is evidence of what reckless diplomacy that has not been properly considered can lead to.
There is every reason to believe that Obama will be seen as weak on the military, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and opposing tyranny. That is dangerous and is just one of the many reasons that Obama's candidacy scares so many Americans.
Israel is currently negotiating with Syria and Hamas through Turkey and Egypt. There have already been talks between the EU and Iran and also the United States and Iran over Iraq. The elected government of Afghanistan have called for talks with the Taliban leadership. Talks do not equal appeasement. No one is talking about making dangerous concessions and hoping a problem goes away. McCain has flip flopped on Cuba, Hamas and a series of other issues as well.
Bush actually helped Obama by allowing him to link Bush to McCain on foreign policy and clearly pointing out the differences he has with the Republican Party on international affairs. Bush is as big a liability to McCain as Wright is to Obama. The argument with Bush\McCain and Obama pushed Hillary onto the sidelines and gave everyone a taste of the inevitable race ahead. McCain has talked about bombing Iran, staying in Iraq 100 years and has often seemed confused when talking issues that are suppose to be his strength. He hasn't demonstrated anything that would give people any confidence that he is a fiscal Conservative or up to the job of addressing the American economy. He has not shown that he is any different from Bush on the issues that matter most. I like where McCain stands on the environment but he is not going to take the Al Gore environmentalist vote in November. The youth, Hispanic and African American vote will come out in huge numbers for Obama. 70% of Americans oppose the Iraq war. The economy is in recession. McCain is now going to get tested as a candidate in the media and by Obama going forward. His months of observing the Democratic race on the sidelines and hoping the candidates tear each other down is about to end.
Americans are tired of Bush and his failed policies. They want change and McCain doesn't seem to want to offer that change. That makes a lot of people uneasy about McCain as president and a good reason why Obama is up 8 points with momentum according to recent polling. Obama has shown the ability to stand up and fight and take media heat over the last few weeks. The crowd of 70,000 in Portland was an incredible sight to see for a political event and a clear sign of things to come in the general election.
"This is virtually unprecedented and it displays incredible weakness in him as a candidate."
Mike Huckabee did this to McCain until the delegate count was official. Ann Coulter went as far as to endorse Hillary Clinton over McCain. There was heavy tension between Romney and McCain, yet now Romney is on TV going after Obama and lobbying for a VP spot. There is still plenty of opposition to McCain over election financing, immigration, environment, economic credentials, age and appeal to social Conservatives.
Right now this is all good politics and positioning. Once both conventions are over and the real race gets under way, John McCain is going to be held accountable for the record of George Bush and the Republican Party. America is tired of division and polarization. We already saw a sign of things to come in 2006 and those 3 Congressional seat races. John McCain is another term for George Bush. I think most voters will take a chance on an unknown as oppose to risk four more years of the status quo. It is time for complete change in American government and a rebuilding of the Republican brand. The Reagan coalition has fallen apart and that will be very obvious after the election this fall. If Democratic turnout is the same in November as it has been in all 50 states during the primaries; I think Obama could win in a blow out.
Regardless of who is president, they will inherit a Democratic Senate and Congress. If McCain were to get elected under those circumstances, it would be interesting to see if he would appease Democrats or his Conservative base? Could get interesting on immigration, environment, Supreme Court judges and Iraq.
Darryl, are you now on board Obama's appeasement train? Even if you support Obama, you don't have to support appeasement which Obama advocates.
Nothing can be gained from talking to Ahmadinejad at the presidential level, and the same goes for Cuba. What can be gained by providing legitimacy to those tyrants? There should be back channel contacts, and there always have been, but sitting down at the table would do nothing but provide presitge to a despot.
Funding for opposition groups in Cuba, Iran, and N. Korea should be quintupled.
Bush's "failed" policies are showing remarkable dividends, so be careful going down that road. His "failed" policies have also resulted in ZERO terrorist attacks since 9/11. Iraq is doing so well even the NY Times acknowledged it today on the front page.
Ed Koch wrote today that Bush would be justified by history as Truman was. And, Bush's approval rate is higher than Trumans, although Trumans disapproval rate was lower.
I don't think 70% oppose the war, I would think 80% are opposed to losing a war just because there are probably 20% Democrats who hate America (like Michelle Obama).
Obama thinks he's immune from criticism. He's no Messiah, and he's no different than Carter. You're getting on board a sinking ship... get off before it gets worse!
The sad part is that the entire American government is dysfunctional. Nothing gets done, there are no forward looking solutions. We need Gingrich back. Leahy and Durbin can point the finger at oil execs all they want, but they are the ones responsible for no drilling in ANWR, no drilling in 80% of the offshore supplies, and no new nuclear plants.
I agree we need more nuclear power plants and Gingrich would be a good vp choice for McCain.
The comments of Michelle Obama are completely out of context and not fair game. If we want to twist quotes than I think it is fair to say McCain doesn't understand the difference between Sunni and Shite and wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. "Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Iran". McCain has also spoken in favour of "appeasement" on both Hamas and Cuba.
In terms of Ahmadinejad, he is not the leader of Iran and negotiations should take place with the real Supreme leadership that actually has the power to make changes in policy.
We have seen what happens when America refuses to talk to its enemies. Iran is more powerful now than before Bush took office. Hamas controls Gaza and arguably the Palestinian track. Hezbollah now has a veto power over Lebanon's cabinet. North Korea is a nuclear power. Chavez is the most powerful figure in Latin America and how did those Chinese flags look off the Florida coast drilling oil in Cuba. The embargo against Castro has been a laughable failure and is nothing more than political appeasement to the Cuban exiles in Miami.
Engaging in talks is not appeasement. We have seen Bush's strategy fail, it is time for a change in approach.
In terms of history we will see how Bush is judged. He could be the president who saw America collapse as the sole super power on his watch because of his decision in Iraq and also his economic/environmental policies.
"There's no precedent in modern primary history for a candidate growing weaker* the more his nomination becomes inevitable."
"If I were a party bigwig, I'd be unnerved by some of these numbers. The media have fallen for Senator Obama, but the louder they trill "I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love with a wonderful guy!", the more Democratic voters refuse to singalong.
By the way, if Hillary had been campaigning the way she's doing now this time last year instead of doing the queenlier-than-thou Barbra Streisand routine, she'd have won."
Mark Steyn, Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Democratic party poobahs know they have a loser with Obama, and they're too cowardly to do anything about it. I imagine the super-delegates will walk the plank in August and put Obama over the top, not because he's the best DRC candidate to contest the general election, but because it's the safest option for themselves.
Post a Comment