Clinton Wins Kentucky

I'm just getting home from what I think qualifies as my first-ever event on the Washington cocktail party circuit (in a neighborhood so fancy I hadn't realized it existed) and see Hillary Clinton's on TV giving her victory speech from Kentucky. Somehow, I don't see this speech turning things around and securing her the nomination. I get the sense watching her talk that she realizes this, though. A certain tension of the feisty underdog is gone -- she's smiling and having fun, talking about the issues that matter to her.

UPDATE: Okay, now she's shifted back into campaign flim-flam. Apparently, Kentucky is the only state that counts and she's talking tough about running all the way to the convention. I'm back to being disgusted by her, her staff, and her campaign and regret having said anything mildly positive above.

Comments

That kid in the brown t-shirt behind her cracks me up.

Posted by southpaw | May 20, 2008 8:30 PM

So what does one wear to a Washington cocktail party circuit event?

Posted by RSA | May 20, 2008 8:33 PM

Yeah, the brown shirt kid, and the frowning sign boy behind him!

Typical Clinton BS.

Posted by Danny C. | May 20, 2008 8:35 PM

She's talking about that kid in KY who sold his BIKE to raise money for her.

Think about how sick that is. Hillary and Bill were worth over $100 million dollars. They'll probably be worth more than $200 million by 2016.

Yet they allowed some kid to sell what is likely his most valued possession to support a failed exercise. Or at least to support their vanity project.

Sullivan and Powers are right: She is a sociopath and a monster. (But not because she is a woman.)

Posted by Choska | May 20, 2008 8:37 PM

Choska, you're a moron.

Posted by Vidor | May 20, 2008 8:45 PM

"Whoever she may be"
I am gonna vomit.

Posted by Benjamin | May 20, 2008 8:47 PM

Just reminding everyone that as of this morning, the "Hillary's ahead in the popular vote count" meme, which I'm sure we'll be hearing, works only if you count FL, count only Hillary votes in MI, and do not count IA, NV, ME, and WA at all. That is, you must disenfranchise all voters in four states and Obama supporters in a fifth to get a "true picture" of the voters' will. (That lead is 8/100ths of a percent.)

To be updated based on tonight's numbers. But at the moment, this seems to be taking hold, occasionally with "if you count Michigan" as a qualifier, but never with "if you count only Hillary's votes from Michigan, and don't count a bunch of caucus states at all" as the qualifier.

Posted by Deborah | May 20, 2008 8:48 PM

Matthew is really get pathetic. The bitterness is really not flattering on anyone.

Clinton just shellacked your candidate - your "presumptive nominee" - by at least 35 points in Kentucky. At latest count she has netted over 206,000 popular votes so far.

After listening to Barack Obama supporters I couldn't be more proud of the candidate I am supporting no matter what occurs.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 8:49 PM

It is funny how Clinton never fails to jump onto something ephemeral for temporary advantage that ends up contradicting what she just said 5 minutes earlier. You can't be a champion of the working class, a multi-millionaire with "experience" and then brag about a kid selling his bike. That kid is going to realized he got hosed in a few years and is gonna be pissed. She better give him an internship at least at some point in the future after (as Jon Stewart pointed out) blowing his bike money on confetti.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 8:50 PM

Whatever, you trustifarian scumbag. Cocktail parties now, planting your jackbooted heel on the neck of the proletariat tomorrow...

[/Petey]

Posted by DMonteith | May 20, 2008 8:51 PM

Matthew is really get pathetic.

Dude, all your delegate are now belong to us.

Posted by James Gary | May 20, 2008 8:52 PM

Forget the primary, we want basketblogging! Give us your insight on the lottery -- should the Bulls take Rose or Beasley?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 20, 2008 8:53 PM

"After listening to Barack Obama supporters I couldn't be more proud of the candidate I am supporting no matter what occurs.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 8:49 PM"

I'm guessing someone didn't see the "The Daily Show" segment on Hillary's supporters in West Virginia. A lot to be proud of!

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 8:53 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | May 20, 2008 8:54 PM

Hillary Clinton has to be the only candidate for president in American history that can win state primaries by 20-40 points when the "leader" still doesn't have enough delegates to win and people keep calling her selfish, arrogant and even "evil" because she won't drop out. And to think, at the beginning, Obama supporters claimed Clinton was pissed because they were ruining HER coronation. The truth is that the presumed leader in this race can't seal the deal. He's not getting the working class white voters - I mean they're only the MAJORITY of people in the country! If he picks anyone other than Hillary Clinton as his running mate, not only will he lose the general election to McCain, but he'll prove that he was too incompetent to run the country anyway. Further, alienating Clinton Democrats by calling them racists and back-woods hicks would be like McCain saying that all Reagan Republicans were white trash.

Posted by Nathan | May 20, 2008 8:54 PM

I went to school at a university that prided itself on douchebaggery in support of athletics. In particular, I used to go to a lot of hockey games, where due to a general lack of sportsmanship and a raucous crowd, we used to routinely blow other schools out by double-digits.

When we were crushing, we got even meaner, so when the other team would notch a desperation goal, the opposing side's supporters, who had been heckled and maligned along with their team, would spring to their feet and start talking to back.

I/r/t situations like the above, a few fans developed a cheer which would soon spread to the entire arena:

"IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER! IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

I think the Party's been through enough acrimony this spring, and I don't recommend taunting the Hillbots any further. But the next time she, or someone on her staff, or one of her trolls aggravates you in some way, might I recommend chanting that cheer to yourself (silently, of course)?

It's summertime. The world is beautiful outside. Let's spend the next few months frolicking, traveling, reading books, and engaging in abstract policy discussion. Let's put presidential politics to bed until the convention, which is as it should be.

Just my 2¢.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 8:54 PM

Didn't Billary use this kid with the bike story in another state? I wonder if they are reusing this story, amended for each state?

With Hillary, the only states that matter are the ones she wins. And this popular vote argument she uses is so misleading, so dishonest, that she deserves to be smacked down for that alone.

And in spite of all of Hillary's complaining about the press, the bottom line is that she wouldn't even be in this race any longer if not for her last name. Any other candidate would have been drummed out after getting drubbed in 11 straight contests in Feb.

Posted by cm | May 20, 2008 8:54 PM

It's interesting that Hillary is getting these huge wins only after she's effectively lost the nomination. I remember some bloggers saying that Edwards did as poorly as he did in part due to an unfavorable primary calendar... Could a more favorable calendar have turned things around for Clinton? If West Virginia and Kentucky were immediately after Super Duper Tuesday, might her campaign have been resuscitated such that she could have overtaken Obama thereafter?

Posted by eric | May 20, 2008 8:54 PM

Clinton just shellacked your candidate - your "presumptive nominee" - by at least 35 points in Kentucky.

Whoop-de-doo? So Kentucky gets slotted into the list of states that voted for candidate A -- candidate B has still won more of the states, more votes, more delegates (the majority of them, actually), and is still the presumptive nominee.

One state voting the other way doesn't really change any of that.

At latest count she has netted over 206,000 popular votes so far.

So far. I'm sure you haven't forgotten that another state voted today, too.

After listening to Barack Obama supporters I couldn't be more proud of the candidate I am supporting no matter what occurs.

You're casting a write-in for Sen. Clinton even once it is officially declared that she's lost the nomination? And all because some catty (and triumphant, with good reason) people on the vast internets got your goat? Remarkable. I'm sure she's as proud of you as you are of her.

Posted by jbryan | May 20, 2008 8:55 PM

"He's not getting the working class white voters - I mean they're only the MAJORITY of people in the country! If he picks anyone other than Hillary Clinton as his running mate, not only will he lose the general election to McCain, but he'll prove that he was too incompetent to run the country anyway."

There is a difference between the Appalachian white working class vote, which Clinton has been winning, and the working class vote in general. Out West, Obama tends to win it. Once you leave Appalachia, the white working class hate Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 8:58 PM

And BTW, as I've said before, this length of this race is ALL about the money. Hillary needs cash to pay down her campaign debt. Running for president lets you raise a lot of cash. It's not rocket science.

She's not crazy, nor evil. She's a rational human being behaving rationally given her circumstances.
Let her run her hustle, get those big used-bike $, and bow out in June.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 8:59 PM

Hillary plans to stay in until there's a nominee. As long as she's not trashing Obama (any more), what in the world is wrong with that ?

Matt may well have a legitimate gripe with the superdelegates who are sitting on their hands, but Democrats who keep fighting are, it says here, a good thing. And Hillary is a good Democrat.

Posted by politicalfootball | May 20, 2008 8:59 PM

Didn't Billary use this kid with the bike story in another state? I wonder if they are reusing this story, amended for each state?

With Hillary, the only states that matter are the ones she wins. And this popular vote argument she uses is so misleading, so dishonest, that she deserves to be smacked down for that alone.

And in spite of all of Hillary's complaining about the press, the bottom line is that she wouldn't even be in this race any longer if not for her last name. Any other candidate would have been drummed out after getting drubbed in 11 straight contests in Feb.

Posted by cm | May 20, 2008 9:00 PM

Since when has it been officially declared that she's lost the nomination?

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 9:02 PM

And I have to say, I really love the "this race is not nearly over" line. You know what? There are three elections left. I think we can pretty safely say it's nearly over.

Posted by jbryan | May 20, 2008 9:04 PM

Nathan, there's a big BIG difference between working class people in Kentucky and working class people in, say, Colorado. No black man is gonna win Appalachia; that says a lot more about Kentucky and W. Virginia than it does some inability to "seal the deal" or inability to appeal to working people in other parts of the country. The real problem here is a buch of undereducated provincial troglodytes somehow claiming the mantle of "authentic" America.

Posted by wha | May 20, 2008 9:06 PM

Right. The audacity of some of these white people to dare vote against a black man. Don't they realize we are the one's we've been waiting for?

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 9:08 PM

NPR just reported that the Obama fellow lost my mother's home county - Perry, K.Y. - by more than 90%.

Maybe Kentucky "doesn't matter" to Mr. Obama (wasn't this the same logic employed by "the Clintons"?).

But reasonable people understand that he would have to win Pennsylvania, and quite possibly Ohio too.

For the most part history-changing presidents don't win without the mountains.

Posted by Linus | May 20, 2008 9:08 PM

Dammit, I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this...

For the most part history-changing presidents don't win without the mountains.

http://my.cmu.edu/assets/admission/images/on_the_road/RockyMountains.gif

[and not to get all phallocentric and sexist, but ours are bigger than yours.]

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 9:12 PM

In other news, with 12 delegates won in Kentucky, Obama just needs 4 of the 51 pledged delegates up for grabs in Oregon to get a majority of pledged delegates. He can get blown out in Oregon and still get those. If you think the superdelegates are going to overturn the pledged delegate and popular vote leader, you're crazy.

It's also funny how Clinton said that white Southern males can go screw themselves when they voted against the Democrats in 1994 and now suddenly she's supposed to be the champion of white males.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 9:15 PM

My point is this... why do we mythologize these people? Have you read the exits? I don't recognize me and my kind when I look at the results from these states - and I grew up in a damn trailer park. Thank God this country is bigger than coal country. Frankly, if "we" lose this election because of Appalachia, I don't care. The U.S., as usual, will get the President it deserves.

Posted by wha | May 20, 2008 9:18 PM

Right. The audacity of some of these white people to dare vote against a black man. Don't they realize we are the one's we've been waiting for?

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 9:08 PM

You don't have a problem with 21% of Kentucky's voters saying race was a factor in their decision, of which over 90% picked the white candidate? And that's just the people that admitted race was a factor. It is possible to find that repulsive no matter which candidate you support

Posted by walsh | May 20, 2008 9:20 PM

Timmeh K,

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you, so I'm going obtuse . . .

It's Miracle Max time for the Clinton campaign. Hillary can slouch into Denver half-dead with Andre the Giant, a wheelbarrow, and a holocaust cloak. Moreover, it may yet work. But it's awfully unlikely, it would do terrible damage to the party if it's tried, and there's a lot of us who don't see Barack Obama as Prince Humperdinck.

Clear as mud?

Posted by southpaw | May 20, 2008 9:22 PM

walsh:

Sure I do. Just like I have a problem with 95% of blacks voting for Barack Obama even though the Clinton's have a stellar record on civil rights going back 30 years. But I don't see any of you Obama people getting all bent out of shape about that racial voting.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 9:23 PM

Linus
Obama will win Pennsylvania.
see http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-MvO.php

In Kentucky (like WV) 20% of Clinton voters polled stated they would not vote for the black candidate.
Not that Kentucky doesn't count, it does, congratulations to Clinton, but it's too little, too late. Hillary is fresh out of racist states.

Posted by bjd | May 20, 2008 9:25 PM

I am so sick and tired of the racist overtones in always looking at the "white working class" vote as if it is definitive. And I say that as a white man myself.

The media has once again bought into the Clinton narrative of which demographic group really matters.

Sure the votes of the white working class matter. But no more or less than the votes of the African Americans, Hispanics, white college educated, etc.

The sad thing is that Hillary has done more to try to divide this country racially than anyone else. And the Republicans could not get away with doing what Hillary has done.

Posted by cm | May 20, 2008 9:25 PM

So the democratic race has turned into black people and white liberals versus the six-pack oriented whites and racists. This is excellent news for Republicans.

Way to fuck up the most promising electoral season in a generation, democrats. You truly are the nation's party o' losers.

Posted by Independent | May 20, 2008 9:27 PM

But I don't see any of you Obama people getting all bent out of shape about that racial voting.

Wrong analogy, K. If Clinton was getting crushed in the male vote, with 21% of Obama indicating gender was a major factor, then yeah, I'd call that fairly disgusting as well.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 9:27 PM

"Sure I do. Just like I have a problem with 95% of blacks voting for Barack Obama even though the Clinton's have a stellar record on civil rights going back 30 years. But I don't see any of you Obama people getting all bent out of shape about that racial voting.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 9:23 PM"

African-Americans started voting against the Clintons en masse because they saw the Clintons as race-baiting. Bill's execution of a mentally retarded guy who asked if he could save his pecan pie with his last meal for later wasn't exactly great for civil rights. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that African-Americans in general could possibly have a point doesn't help your point. Bill's time as prez wasn't exactly a time of landmark civil rights legislation. African-Americans may have not have voted for John Edwards or Bill Richardson, but they also don't actively hate them either like they do the Clintons now. You just seem to be afraid of black people, just as you seem to be afraid of anyone patriotic enough to care more about the US than Israel, you traitorous fuck.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 9:29 PM

Dude, being excited because one of your group - especially when that group was systematically abused, dehumanized, and tortured for 250 years - is making an absolutely historic and unprecedented run for the highest office in the land and voting accordingly is a hell of a lot different than voting for someone very few people actually like just because she is more like them than he is. Racism does not work the same both ways buddy.

Posted by wha | May 20, 2008 9:30 PM

Sorry to be blunt, but African American voters are not going to elect a Democratic president. 90% of African Americans voted for Kerry and he still came over 3 million votes short. White working class voters will determine the next president.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 9:31 PM

You just seem to be afraid of black people, just as you seem to be afraid of anyone patriotic enough to care more about the US than Israel, you traitorous fuck.

Jesus! Calm the fuck down!

Way to fuck up the most promising electoral season in a generation, democrats. You truly are the nation's party o' losers.

Agree 100%. You want to know why Democrats lose elections? Because everyone wants to get their opinion validated, and few know when it's time to buckle down and get shit done.

Now is that time. Let's get on message, get out there, and crush some Republicans. We've got another tidal wave coming this year, just like 2006.

No more Op Chaos. No more Ratfucking. Crips, stop killing Bloods. Bloods, stop killing Crips.

It's time to win. Let's act like it.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Not that Kentucky doesn't count, it does, congratulations to Clinton, but it's too little, too late.

Yes, this is exactly so. Kentucky does count. West Virginia counts. Pennsylvania counts.

All of the states count, but they don't all count equally. Helpfully, the party has come up with an exact metric to determine just how much each state counts. They're called delegates.

So while Sen. Clinton's victories count, they simply don't count as much as Sen. Obama's, because he's won more delegates. That's the simple, abstract value.

Posted by jbryan | May 20, 2008 9:37 PM

"Sorry to be blunt, but African American voters are not going to elect a Democratic president."

To be equally blunt, if you think your girl can win without 80% or more of the African American voters you're dreaming. Bill Clinton didn't get more than 42% of the white vote in either of his victories.

Posted by Helter | May 20, 2008 9:38 PM

The white working class vote is such a stupid thing to determine this on. Memo to doubters: You dont get 75,000 people (in a mostly white state) by being "unelectable". In two months this will all be water under the bridge.

Posted by Ben | May 20, 2008 9:38 PM

The white working class vote is such a stupid thing to determine this on. Memo to doubters: You dont get 75,000 people (in a mostly white state) by being "unelectable". In two months this will all be water under the bridge.

Posted by Ben | May 20, 2008 9:39 PM

The white working class vote is such a stupid thing to determine this on. Memo to doubters: You dont get 75,000 people (in a mostly white state) by being "unelectable". In two months this will all be water under the bridge.

Posted by Ben | May 20, 2008 9:39 PM

Sorry to be blunt, but African American voters are not going to elect a Democratic president. 90% of African Americans voted for Kerry and he still came over 3 million votes short. White working class voters will determine the next president.

Yeah everybody, it's too bad the black fellow won the contest. Unfortunately, the existence of racism in Appalachia prevents us from actually conferring the nomination he earned. Quite obviously, it will have to be a white person.

Of course, we're not being racists; it's just that awful white working class. They're implacable! Terrible shame, really. Anyway, moving on.

Posted by southpaw | May 20, 2008 9:41 PM

"Sorry to be blunt, but African American voters are not going to elect a Democratic president."

To be equally blunt, if you think your girl can win without 80% or more of the African American voters you're dreaming.

Bingo. This is why it's time for BOTH SIDES to put the bad feelings to bed.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 9:41 PM

...being excited because one of your group - especially when that group was systematically abused, dehumanized, and tortured for 250 years - is making an absolutely historic and unprecedented run for the highest office in the land and voting accordingly is a hell of a lot different than voting for someone very few people actually like just because she is more like them than he is.

wha: Working class whites aren't voting for Clinton "because she is more like them than he is." They're voting for her because, unlike their upscale, well-educated cousins, the economy is their biggest issue, and rightly or wrongly, they associate the Clinton brand with prosperity (and Hillary's strain of that brand in particular with FDR/LBJ style redistributionism).

Working-class blacks, of course, have eschewed voting for the aforementioned brand -- and have rallied to the Obama banner -- for the reasons you cite.

Race is very much the deciding factor in the Democratic nomination process. But racism (ie., racial animus) isn't.

Posted by Millicent | May 20, 2008 9:41 PM

"Sorry to be blunt, but African American voters are not going to elect a Democratic president. 90% of African Americans voted for Kerry and he still came over 3 million votes short. White working class voters will determine the next president.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 9:31 PM"

Since when are white working class people the majority of this country? Their percentage of the population is shrinking and is also distinct from white middle class people and white upper middle class people. Clinton can't win white working class people outside of Appalachia. Running around about your advantage with one subgroup in one part of the country isn't much to brag about. Crossover voters and independents tend to be the ones who determine who wins the presidency and they hate Clinton. When only 52% of Americans think you share their American values, you have no chance of winning. Also, how would Clinton win anywhere anyway without huge African-American turnout? African-American turnout is usually around 90% and Democrats need it that way to remain competitive. She would need that to win Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, but African-Americans are pissed off enough at her that even if 75% of African-Americans came out to vote she would still lose. That doesn't even factor in how she would also stand to lose the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest as well, so she would have to play defense there (where no Democrat should need to) while trying to find a way to make headway in Florida. The logistics for her were never there.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 9:43 PM

Black voters are not being racist by voting for a black candidate. Millions of black voters have demonstrated that they are completely willing to vote for white candidates. Indeed, they have voted exclusively for white presidential candidates since they were given the vote, as there has been no other choice. If they were racists, they wouldn't vote at all. There is no equivalency between the voting pattern of black voters in these primaries and white voters who say they won't vote for a black candidate. The black voters voting for a black candidate have already demonstrated that they will vote for a white candidate. The white voters who cite race as a reason for their Clinton vote are saying that they WON'T vote for a black candidate. That's racist.

Posted by Brian | May 20, 2008 9:43 PM

It's great to see all these Hillary supporters pretend that anything other than racism is keeping her in the game. But then we all know they are really good at denial.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 9:47 PM

the Clinton's have a stellar record on civil rights going back 30 years

Yeah, executing that mentally retarded black guy before the 1992 election just so he could show he wasn't too "soft" on race was fucking stellar.

(Runners up: posing for that photo overlooking a group of black prisoners just so he could show he wasn't too "soft" on race; picking a meaningless fight with a third-rate rapper just so he could show he wasn't too "soft" on race. With Democrats like these...)

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 9:49 PM

Kerry actually won 88% of the black vote in 2004, not 90%. Obama would likely win 92% or more of that vote, and the turnout will be much, much higher. There are millions of eligible black voters that did not vote in 2004 that the Obama registration drive and get-out-the-vote efforts are already identifying and bringing into the process. I have registered many of these folks myself.

Posted by Brian | May 20, 2008 9:50 PM

This Modern World

Posted by bjd | May 20, 2008 9:52 PM

Hillary plans to stay in until there's a nominee. As long as she's not trashing Obama (any more), what in the world is wrong with that ?

But she is trashing Obama. The whole popular vote argument - explicitly analogized to the 2000 election by a Clinton hack on MSNBC earlier today - is incendiary stuff. It's an argument not that Clinton is viable but instead that Obama's insurmountable delegate lead is illegitimate. That he's stolen the election. That it's all an unfair, biased contest and (together with the other popular narrative in the Hillosphere) that the guys aren't letting a woman compete on even ground.

This argument won't sway the critical undeclared superdelegates; they know better, if only because they are being constantly importuned and educated by backers of both candidates. It likely won't even sway many voters. But it will create and perpetuate massive reservoirs of resentment, even hatred, for Obama among Clinton's hardcore supporters.

I reiterate: this narrative is not about boosting Clinton. It is about destroying Obama. It is shameful and it should not be tolerated.

Posted by Warren Terra | May 20, 2008 9:53 PM

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_party_coalesces_around_oba.php

"Gallup notices that Sen. Barack Obama is surging precisely among those voting groups who had resisted his charms to date. To wit: Obama's now beating Clinton among Hispanics, for example."

So he's tied on white people with Clinton, beating her with people with a high school degree or less, beating her among Hispanics and is polling better with white people vs. McCain than Gore or Kerry did vs. Bush. But Clinton has Appalachia!

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 9:53 PM

Working class whites aren't voting for Clinton "because she is more like them than he is." They're voting for her because, unlike their upscale, well-educated cousins, the economy is their biggest issue...

28% (130,000) of Clinton's voters in Kentucky outright admitted that they voted for her because she was the white candidate.

Posted by jbryan | May 20, 2008 9:55 PM

Marc,

Clinton had to pick those fights BECAUSE of his stellar civil-rights records. His tenure in office did a significant amount to destroy the last vestiges of state-supported Jim Crow racism.

Not that it makes what you listed above right. And not that I'm a Clinton supporter my any means. But let's not misrepresent history to score a cheap point. And let's not weaken our comrades by baiting them any further.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 9:55 PM

In other news, I for one am enjoying that McCain once again only managed 72% of the vote. Republicans sure don't love their presumptive nominee. (Not that they won't all vote for him come November.)

Posted by Eric | May 20, 2008 9:56 PM

Sorry to be blunt, but African American voters are not going to elect a Democratic president. 90% of African Americans voted for Kerry and he still came over 3 million votes short. White working class voters will determine the next president.

I don't think you need to apologize for being blunt. It would be nice if you apologized for being wrong but that is, of course, up to you. Others have pointed out some of the more obvious errors in this brief comment but I would add this: Trying to divide up the electorate and deciding demographic x is where we will win is, to be blunt, a tremendously stupid way of looking at things. It is also the most sure way to lose any election.

Anyone who wins the presidency does so through a solid coalition of many groups. Pretending that one or the other is not a crucial part of that coalition is not something that any winning politician is ever going to be dimwitted enough to do.

Posted by brent | May 20, 2008 9:59 PM

Not that they won't all vote for him come November.

Absolutely they won't all vote for him come November! Some will stay home and wait for '12, and a few will cross over to vote for the popular kid.

I worked a deep-red district that flipped in '06, and I saw this phenomenon with my own eyes.

We're looking at big pickups this year, guys, regardless of the nominee. Keep that in the forefront of your brain and work constructively.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:02 PM

Warren Terra raises an important overlooked point. The argument from the popular vote is intellectually dishonest. The only reason to look to the popular vote is as an indicator of the true "will of the people"/level of support for each candidate. But the only way for Clinton to be ahead in this metric is to count Michigan, which means that she gets credit for 328,000 votes in that state and Obama gets credit for none. It is clearly not the case that not a single soul in the state of Michigan supports Obama, thus the entire logical basis for pointing to the popular vote-- that it is a true indicator of the candidates' relative levels of support-- is a fallacy. Every journalist should be pointing this out when discussing the popular vote-- not just that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, but what that means and why it renders the metric meaningless-- and their failure to do so is a professional lapse of epic proportions.

Now to the critical point that Warren makes. By continuing to point to this bogus metric, Clinton and her supporters are creating a perception among many voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for Obama that he is somehow illegitimate. It is not an overstatement to suggest that the resentment Clinton is fomenting could cost the Democrats the election.

Posted by Brian | May 20, 2008 10:04 PM

And let's not weaken our comrades by baiting them any further.

Ahhhhhhh, fuck that. The only thing bullshitters understand is a good verbal beatdown.

But, on a lighter note, what does everyone think was Hillary's lowest, most demagogic moment in this election? There's a lot of good candidates (so to speak), but I like how she drippingly lied that she was "honored to be on the same stage with Barack Obama," and then went out the next day with her "Shame on you" speech. Or maybe it was offering Obama the vice-presidency after he had surged ahead.

So many possibilities.... What do you guys think?

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:05 PM

Now to the critical point that Warren makes. By continuing to point to this bogus metric, Clinton and her supporters are creating a perception among many voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for Obama that he is somehow illegitimate.

I recognize your point, but I don't think this will be a strong enough narrative to carry over into November. Once Clinton starts campaigning for Obama, this idea is going to disappear in all but the most invidious (and likely Republican) trolls.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:08 PM

So many possibilities.... What do you guys think?

I think you're a troll. Straight up. Trying to stir up internecine warfare, either for the benefit of the Republican party, and/or your own amusement.

Evidence I'm wrong?

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:11 PM

"And let's not weaken our comrades by baiting them any further."

There is a difference between the average Clinton supporter out there in the real, non-digital and idiots commenting on a blog. Only Ron Paul's "Revolution" only took place online.

"So many possibilities.... What do you guys think?

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:05 PM"

Lowest point of her campaign was probably Robert Johnson wondering if Obama was a drug dealer. As for Clinton herself, talking about not hesitating at all before committing nuclear genocide in case of a hypothetical that has like a 1% chance of coming true (Iran nuking Israel) was pretty creepy.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 10:12 PM

17-20% of Clinton voters in Kentucky will vote for McCain even if Clinton is the nominee. They keep harping on how many will not vote for Obama, but they won't vote for Clinton either. She won KY, WV, OH, and TX because of the support of Republicans. They might be registered Democrats (from the 70s), but they voted for Bush in 2004. Probably voted for Dole and Reagan too.

I think the Clintons woke up after Wisconsin and realized they were done. They figured out the math was inevitable and their only hope was overwhelming Super support. So, they leaked the Wright stuff and moved their message far to the right to capture these racist conservative states coming up. But, they couldn't win Oregon, North Carolina or the Texas caucus with that strategy and thus they have run up all this debt for nothing.

Posted by Patrick | May 20, 2008 10:13 PM

In Mississippi 31% of voters considered race important with Obama winning 63% of this group. In Illinois, 23% of voters said race was important and Obama won 72% of the group. In Georgia, 21% of voters thought race was important and Obama won 72% of the group.

Roughly 20% of voters in every primary going back to Super Tuesday have said race was important. The only thing that changes is who wins a majority of these voters.

Posted by check the numbers | May 20, 2008 10:13 PM

Scythia,

I would disagree that Clinton "had" to do any such thing--especially execute another human being who wasn't legally or mentally culpable for his crimes. They were part of a decades-long strategy of triangulation that led to other stellar decisions such as his wife's vote for the Iraq war. It's as important to remember that as it is to dispel Tim's strange notion that the Clintons are somehow owed the support of black voters.

Yeah, yeah, I know--work for November, be excellent to each other, I'm right there with you--but we don't do our nominee any favors by selectively forgetting history or ceding absurd arguments to those who are still working to undermine his nomination.

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 10:14 PM

I think you're a troll. Straight up....Evidence I'm wrong?

Try Google.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:18 PM

There is a difference between the average Clinton supporter out there in the real, non-digital and idiots commenting on a blog.

No doubt.

Only Ron Paul's "Revolution" only took place online.

And the Dan Rather takedown. And the massive Obama fundraising lead.

The internet is important for the left. Not because we're representative of the average voter, but because we are the ones driving the party, organizationally and ideologically.

And we're also gonna get media play from lazy reporters with nothing to cover. The longer we fight, the longer the "Dems divided" meme will play in the media, intensifying the chances that what we all fear (Obama will be hurt by the divisive primary in the general) will come to pass.

By contrast, in elevating our discourse--even just at this blog--we can set an example for the rest of the online commenters, help bring Clinton's supporters off the ledge and back into the fold, and shine a light for the future path of the campaign.

Speaking as one Obama supporter to another, I think this is exactly what the big guy would want us to do.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:19 PM

There is a difference between the average Clinton supporter out there in the real, non-digital and idiots commenting on a blog.

No doubt.

Only Ron Paul's "Revolution" only took place online.

And the Dan Rather takedown. And the massive Obama fundraising lead.

The internet is important for the left. Not because we're representative of the average voter, but because we are the ones driving the party, organizationally and ideologically.

And we're also gonna get media play from lazy reporters with nothing to cover. The longer we fight, the longer the "Dems divided" meme will play in the media, intensifying the chances that what we all fear (Obama will be hurt by the divisive primary in the general) will come to pass.

By contrast, in elevating our discourse--even just at this blog--we can set an example for the rest of the online commenters, help bring Clinton's supporters off the ledge and back into the fold, and shine a light for the future path of the campaign.

Speaking as one Obama supporter to another, I think this is exactly what the big guy would want us to do.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:19 PM

Hillary's worst moment was her sarcastic shot at Obama that his campaign was promising that, "the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everybody will know that we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect." It was juvenile and undignified. Adults don't act like that unless they've really lost it and gotten pissed off and resentful.

Posted by Tyro | May 20, 2008 10:22 PM

Reality Man--
Both are good choices. I was really only thinking of things said by Hillary, but maybe that was too narrow. Hey, remember the "she's better than her campaign" meme they tried to float? It's such a non-starter now.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:22 PM

apparently Sullivan yelled at Yglesias so he had to post the update

Posted by wtf | May 20, 2008 10:25 PM

If he picks HRC for VIP, I will not vote for him. I'll be ever more pissed if he takes the money I gave his campaign to HRC for her debt!

Posted by Orin | May 20, 2008 10:28 PM

Marc,

True indeed. Look, man, I agree with you. I went Nader in 2000, largely to protest triangulation. But from what I've read recently, it seems like it's a strategy that yielded some significant, positive results, much more so than for the nation as a whole.

But to the larger point--personally speaking, do I think Clinton's pulled some fucked up, even racist shit in this campaign? Probably. But every time I (or anyone else) makes that point on a comment board, someone else comes in and starts claiming sexism, and we just go round in circles, without getting anywhere closer to a positive November strategy.

I think at this point, with the nom largely in hand, pushing back just makes us weaker.

Eventually, the Hillary supporters are going to roll in from other websites and flood us with trolly bullshit. It's been happening for weeks, and the same characters (EWard, etc) pull it every time. Just once, I would love it if they got here and there was nothing to see. Just reasonable discussion, no one to flame, and nothing to do but post silly non-sequiter bait. that no local poster was stupid to rise to.

That's all I'm saying.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:30 PM

Marc,

True indeed. Look, man, I agree with you. I went Nader in 2000, largely to protest triangulation. But from what I've read recently, it seems like it's a strategy that yielded some significant, positive results in Arkansas, much more so than for the nation as a whole.

But to the larger point--personally speaking, do I think Clinton's pulled some fucked up, even racist shit in this campaign? Probably. But every time I (or anyone else) makes that point on a comment board, someone else comes in and starts claiming sexism, and we just go round in circles, without getting anywhere closer to a positive November strategy.

I think at this point, with the nom largely in hand, pushing back just makes us weaker.

Eventually, the Hillary supporters are going to roll in from other websites and flood us with trolly bullshit. It's been happening for weeks, and the same characters (EWard, etc) pull it every time. Just once, I would love it if they got here and there was nothing to see. Just reasonable discussion, no one to flame, and nothing to do but post silly non-sequiter bait. that no local poster was stupid to rise to.

That's all I'm saying.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:30 PM

scythia--
The "Dems divided" meme is kept alive by our tolerating all that infantile bullshit in service of Hillary. She'll stay in the race until the convention (or after) spewing Republican talking points unless something is done. She will never quit. Her dead-enders are now reflexively crying "sexism" at any mention of the electoral reality, and are more tightly bound to Hillary's heroic vision of herself every day. She is hoping to have a permanently aggrieved subset of the party that she can call out when she needs them. Fuck that. She has to go. And the only way to get her out is for her supporters to wake up.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:30 PM

in a neighborhood so fancy I hadn't realized it existed

Which one?

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 20, 2008 10:31 PM

toasters,

My apologies. But please see my post above. (and I loved "Jonanism," btw. didn't realize that was your baby.)

And apologies to everybody for the double posts, guys! I've been to this website before, I swear...

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:32 PM

Oh, Jesus. I'm being lectured on the need to come together by a Nader voter?. Really, what the fuck?

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:32 PM

Clinton = LOSER

Posted by Brad | May 20, 2008 10:33 PM

I'll be ever more pissed if he takes the money I gave his campaign to HRC for her debt!

If you were at all concerned about this, I would think you'd have looked into the relevant finance law governing it, and noticed that it would be illegal.

Posted by justinb | May 20, 2008 10:38 PM

The "Dems divided" meme is kept alive by our tolerating all that infantile bullshit in service of Hillary....Her dead-enders are now reflexively crying...at any mention of the electoral reality, and are more tightly bound to Hillary's heroic vision of herself every day.

Yeah, no doubt. But seriously, given all the time you've spent on the internet, and just dealt with people in general, which is the more likely strategy to get them to stop:

1) Engaging them, addressing their arguments on the merits, and drawing them into further conversation, ultimately spending the better part of an evening rehashing a debate that's goes nowhere?

2) Ignoring them, and not giving them any fuel for further comments?

?

When the outcome of a race is in doubt, it makes sense to push back against your opposition's narrative. But when the race has been decided, doing so just legitimizes the argument that it's not over.

Which situation do you think we find ourselves in now?

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:38 PM

in a neighborhood so fancy I hadn't realized it existed

Which one?

I'm guessing the area between Normanstone Park and Cleveland Ave.

Posted by Tyro | May 20, 2008 10:39 PM

Oh, Jesus. I'm being lectured on the need to come together by a Nader voter?. Really, what the fuck?

Spent the last eight years of my life trying to get that vote back, dawg. Done substantial campaign work in pennance.

But, to put a positive frame on it: I know the political dangers of indulgent, self-destructive behavior. Keep THAT in mind as you read my comments here.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:41 PM

Since when has it been officially declared that she's lost the nomination?

Tim, you may want to notice that Hillary would need more delegates to win a majority than there are delegates remaining.

In other words, unless you want to move the goalposts *again* and start re-voting in states that she didn't win the first time 'round, she lost. Of course, she really lost back on super Tuesday, it's just that it wasn't readily apparent to lots of folks back then.

Posted by justinb | May 20, 2008 10:42 PM

When the outcome of a race is in doubt, it makes sense to push back against your opposition's narrative. But when the race has been decided, doing so just legitimizes the argument that it's not over.

Well, yeah. That's why I asked for a retrospective of Hillary's worst moments--not arguments against her. I come to bury her, not to evaluate her.

BTW, thanks for noticing--if "jonanism" is what gets me legit, so be it.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:46 PM

toasters,

NP, it was a great line. And I'm sorry for calling you a troll.

But on the real, I think a significant number of commenters--not all, but maybe 10%-30%--who go to Dem-heavy websites to whip up discontent over the lesser-favored candidate are really Republican operatives.

Not GOP-financed. Maybe they're just some RedState reader with a few spare minutes. But they're trying to fuck us up. And given the enormous amount of mental energy we're wasting having these daily mudfights, I'd say they're succeeding.

At this point in the game, I think it's time to separate the real from the fake. That's where I'd like to put my effort now, not in driving my ideological comrades come November into a delirious rage.

I hope you'll join me. Let's refrain for a little bit, and see who's stirring up all the trouble.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:53 PM

But the GOP trolls know their job is to be for Hillary....

Posted by calling all toasters | May 20, 2008 10:56 PM

Not necessarily. Their job is to prolong the conflict. If they can bait Hillary supporters into attacking Obama supporters, they've done their job no matter who they initially pretended to represent.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 10:59 PM

BTW, I see we've been the only ones talking here for the last 20 minutes. This thread is dead!

Ladies and gentlemen, congratulations! Congratulations to Hillary supporters for KY, Obama supporters for Oregon (presumably), and all right-thinking left-leaners everywhere!

Keep a sober head. And onward to victory in 2008!

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 11:03 PM

To continue with the hockey metaphors - Hillary is getting her clock cleaned in Ore.