Another Family Split over Clinton and Obama

Elizabeth Edwards seems to back Hillary Clinton.

Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, has been courted by both sides since he dropped out of the nomination fight in late January. Most analysts believe he favors Obama, but one reason he might be staying publicly neutral is that his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, has tilted toward Clinton, publicly praising Clinton’s healthcare plan over Obama’s.

But it appears that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama.

Trivia: if you are a political junkie, you should be able to answer this: what job did John Edward’s dad do?

More chitter chatter

(larger)
(David Horsey)

(larger)
(Pat Oliphant)

Workout notes I’ll do 3 more miles with my group this evening. This morning I went to the East Peoria trail and walked 8 miles; I sort of took it easy going out (54:47) and then sped up on the downhill section (50:34). My time 1:45:21, though this wasn’t so much “hard” as “deliberate”. Though the paved path was slippery in spots, it was all but perfect walking weather. Still, my nose ran and I coughed a bit; I am not at 100 percent.

I wore bluejean shorts and a long sleeved. I am feeling pretty good now that I broke down and bought some good decongestant.

I am not at 100 percent; not even close. We’ll see this weekend; I do know that I have to take it out very humbly at FANS. I was thinking of skipping it altogether but today encouraged me.

Education: I was reminded of the pitfalls of posting grades early; the D students are starting to whine. Unfortunately, many of them have yet to make the connection between knowing the material and getting a better grade. To them, it is all meaningless symbols to be manipulated by some rules which are more or less arbitrary and set by the whims of the professors and text books. They honestly don’t understand the “why” of anything in a calculus class. And unfortunately, they don’t know that a grade implies a level of mastery; they just see a grade as something to be obtained by a requisite amount of suffering and/or effort.

Now if you think that I am one of those “elitist” mathematics professors that hammered the students for not being able to do proofs: not at all. The C, D, and F students barfed on the simple: “here is a function, find its derivative” or on problems such as being able to do simple integrals.

Elections: again
Note: these two cartoons (at the top of the page) appeared in our local paper over the past couple of days)

I wrote a Daily Kos diary about Hillary Clinton’s reasons for staying in the race; I argue that she is not aiming for 2012. I attach a poll; one poll option is to make fun of me.

Thomas Edsall makes a similar argument at the Huffington Post.

Robert Creamer shows that, even with this loss, Obama has moved closer to the nomination. If that seems strange, think of it this way: suppose a football team is up 21-7 with 8 minutes left in the game, and the team that is behind makes a 6 minute drive and ends up kicking a field goal. Yes, the team that is behind has closed the score slightly, but given that more time has elapsed, their chances of winning have actually gone down.

RJ Eskow writes a blistering column; he notes that 7% of the Democratic voters in West Virginia voted for someone who isn’t even running anymore.

Hillary’s remaining advocates have said that she was only ‘telling it like it is,’ albeit with what they’d call a little awkward phrasing, when she told the AP last week that “hard working Americans, white Americans” will never vote for Obama. Okay. As long as we’re telling it like is, let’s go for it: Phrasing aside, when it comes to a avidly racist percentage of white working Americans she’s right. But the problem is, a lot of those voters probably won’t vote for a woman either. In fact, it could be the only way they’ll vote for a woman is if her opponent’s black (and she’s not).

They’re so reluctant, in fact, that 7% of the voters in West Virginia voted for John Edwards, who isn’t even in the race. That fact is nothing short of stunning. Faced with a black man and a white woman, these voters chose a white man who isn’t running. And these are Democrats. Among Southern whites, this makes them the Left.

No Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without West Virginia? Make that argument all you want. The fact is, Democrats kissed off West Virginia when they repudiated Edwards (and it’s questionable whether he could’ve won it either).

Run a woman against a white male war hero, in places like West Virginia? It’s not impossible (neither is a black man), but it’s a definite long shot.

And, down South, Hillary’s not just any woman. She’s the woman who dissed Tammy Wynette. Have you heard Tammy sing? Southerners have — and when that woman’s voice breaks it’s enough to bring a tear to your eye. If they’re still holding a grudge over the Civil War, do you think they’ll forget that Hillary seemed to mock them — and Tammy — in 1992?

(Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating the importance of the Tammy Wynette factor. But do you really think Hillary can carry West Virginia against a white male war hero?) [...]

Ouch! I should point out that the last poll does have Hillary Clinton beating McCain 47-42 in West Virginia. So, yes, I concede that she is stronger in the Appalachian areas than Obama is.

Families: I’ve pointed out that this election has divided families; I’ve talked about mine and now this election has strained romances as well!

More on West Virginia: there is some lingering bitterness

There are more signs of a split within the Democratic Party. Just 23 percent of Hillary Clinton voters in West Virginia said they would be satisfied if Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee while 75 percent said they would be dissatisfied – the highest number recorded in exit polls yet. In Indiana, 62 percent of Clinton voters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee. Sixty one percent of Obama voters said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton as the nominee while 33 percent said they would be satisfied.

Looking ahead to the general election, 59 percent of Clinton voters say they would either vote for Republican John McCain or not vote at all if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Thirty six percent of Clinton voters said they would vote for Obama while 35 percent said they would vote for McCain and 24 percent said they would sit the election out. Fifty one percent of Obama’s voters said they would support Clinton in the general election while 31 percent said they would support McCain and 14 percent would not vote.

I hope this “I’ll take my marbles and go home” sentiment is just primary snideness. If you like either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, believe me, either one is much, much more to your liking than John “more of the same” McCain. Really. If Obama weren’t in this race, I’d have no problems backing HRC in the general.

Some West Virginia Kossacks weigh in. Hollowdweller is hopeful:

I agree there’s more than a few ignorant peckerwoods that would never vote for a black person.

HOWEVER as Mountaineer Maniac points out he didn’t really try.

You really can’t underestimate how much news goes person to person here. And how much showing that you care enough to show up counts.

I think it was Howard Dean said something like that one way Dems could win was to show up and shake a few hands and show people you wanted their vote. Obama didn’t really do that here. He made a few big speeches, visited a few eating places and that was it.

Bill Clinton showed special attention to WV both before AND after he was elected and Hillary out campaigned Obama here. I voted Obama, but I’m a political junkie who gets my news from everywhere not the barber shop, grocery store, or beauty parlor. Obama didn’t do enough up close and personal campaigning.

I have heard people say things about black people here that were totally ignorant. But then I’d say “well what about so and so” (a black person they actually knew) and would get the response “well he’s different”

If Obama would have pursued a more up close campaign style he could have made inroads but the question is given the number of delegates WV has was it worth the effort? I contend he thought NO.

However he may want to come back here and try to win the state over as a sign of his ability to bring people togther and the closeness of most elections in recent years.

But Mountaineer Maniac is tired of seeing his state run down.

I’m sick and tired of Obama supporters putting down the state of West Virginia and it’s people by calling the entire state racist. Sure West Virginia has racists, but so does a lot of other states.

Fact of the matter is Obama had a genuine moment to come into West Virginia like JFK did in 1960 and get to know some truly great people and change some minds, but instead he chose to ignore West Virginia and got his ass handed to him as a result.

* Mountaineer Maniac’s diary :: ::
*

Disclaimer I actually voted for Sen. Obama via my absentee ballot, but last night I wish I had my vote back because he deserved the ass kicking he got in West Virginia.

I’m sick and tired of Obama supporters putting down West Virginia and saying Obama lost West Virginia because the state is full of racists.

If West Virginia is so racist, why is my Congressman an Arab-American? Can you tell me that? He’s one of only two in the U.S. Congress if I’m not mistaken.

Here’s why Obama lost West Virginia.

1. His lazy ass wouldn’t campaign here. He thought he could spend some money on tv and radio ads and influence the voters. Well he was WRONG! West Virginians want to get the know the candidates like voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. They don’t make up their minds on candidates because some coal miner in Illinois says good things about a particular candidate.

2. West Virginia loves Bill and Hillary Clinton. They actually came to West Virginia and went through every small town and hollow asking for votes. Had Obama done the same he might not have got his ass handed to him last night. Don’t forget that President Clinton won West Virginia in 1992 and 1996.

3. Obama has a problem with some working class white voters; voters that he is going to need if he ever wants to become president. Contrary to popular belief, there’s not enough votes in every Starbucks in the country for Obama to win President. If the only thing people know about him is he 1) has a funny name, 2) had a radical preacher, and 3) doesn’t wear an American flag lapel pin, of course people are not going to vote for him. The most astonishing thing I saw in the exit polls last night was roughly 50% of WV voters thought he had the same views as Rev. Wright. I’m sorry, but that’s not as much racism and only knowing about Obama what they hear on tv. He should have came here and told people his life story, his values, and what makes him who is as a person.

4. Obama didn’t even win the young people in West Virginia. He couldn’t even hold the demographics he has been winning in other states.

On a lighter note, I think Sen. Obama will make a great President, but Obama supporters need to quit this bullshit about not needing places like West Virginia. The last thing you should be doing is throwing racist sour grapes at the people of West Virginia. Doesn’t help your candidate (it actually hurts him) and it makes it that much harder on me trying to convince people to support him here in West Virginia in the fall.

Other politics: remember the ignorant idiot who called Obama supporters a collection of “African Americans and eggheads”?

This is the same clown that said that Howard Dean’s “50 state strategy” wouldn’t work.

Remember this, from 5/11/2006?

BLITZER: Very quickly, is Howard Dean in trouble?

BEGALA: No. I think Candy’s report was spot on.

He — yes, he’s in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.

Funny, guess what happened in Mississippi yesterday?

No one could’ve ever predicted that investing in a state’s infrastructure would make it easier to win elections in the future.

p.s. Begala apologized for these comments, but the larger point remains. Begala was reflecting the CW in establishment DC, which has always been against spending money in supposedly “hopeless” states like Mississippi.

Update: Ahh, I’d forgotten that Tim Tagaris, then at the DNC, quickly put up videos of two of those Mississippi nosepickers after Begalas comments.

.

West Virginia: recap

The final tally was 67-26, with 7 percent going to John Edwards. As far as the video, note that HRC doesn’t start asking for money until about 2:30 into the video. Notice how she repeats some of the usual canards. Oh, she has “won” the swing states? Yeah, like Colorado, Washington, Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia and Georgia….oh wait, Obama won those states.

Oh yes, Obama (and Edwards) took their names off of the Michigan ballots because they were requested to do so; Clinton did not. Now she claims it as a “win”.

Hey, let’s throw out some sports metaphors:

1. “Michigan and Florida should count”. Ok, this is a bit like saying that exhibition games should be counted in the standings after the fact!

2. “Obama dominated caucus states, which are disproportionally weighed toward party activists”.
Ok, this is a bit like criticizing a team for knowing the rules and doing well within them.

3. “Clinton would be ahead under Republican rules”. Well, this is false and well, this is like whining that a NBA team that lost a game “would have won” had, say, the 3 point shot rule not been in effect. Campaigns, like sports teams, plan their strategies and field their team so as to win within the current rules.

So, this means that Obama has a “white voter” problem?

No, not really; I present the following:

This map shows where HRC got 65% of the vote or more (by country) and note the huge swath that is Appalachia. BHO just doesn’t do well in that region.

Other quips:

Is appealing to an educated voter bad? An amusing column by Robert J. Elisberg. He claims that Hillary Clinton thinks so.

How close is this race, really? Consider the figures:

The math against Clinton is powerful. Obama led in delegates with 1,875, now just 150 short of the 2,025 needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton had 1,712 — 313 short.

With fewer than 400 delegates left — 189 to be awarded in primaries remaining after Tuesday and the rest uncommitted superdelegates — it’s possible that Obama could clinch the nomination when primary voting ends on June 3.

All it would take is for him to split delegates in the remaining five primaries evenly and take only one out of three remaining superdelegates.

Note: Clinton is expected to do well in Kentucky (Appalachia) though Obama should pick up some votes in Louisville. Obama should do well in Oregon (where he is way ahead) as well as in Montana and South Dakota. Puerto Rico should go to Clinton.

So what is HRC thinking? More and more, people are making the argument that she is trying to damage Obama so she can run against McCain in 2012.

I really don’t buy that argument. Why? Well, if McCain does indeed beat Obama, just what makes her think that she’ll be the nominee in 2012? She started with a lead in money, superdelegates, big donors, party support and about a 20-30 point lead in the polls, and then she went on to squander that. THIS is supposed to convince people that she should be the nominee in 2012? I don’t think so.

And, there is one very harsh reality. Those who are voting for her now are primarily the white elderly (women) and the white uneducated voters. The sad fact is that many of the current elderly people simply won’t be around in 2012, the proportion of uneducated voters will be somewhat smaller in 2012 (more people going to college) and the proportion of white voters will also be smaller. Her demographic base would have shrunk a bit by then.

So my take is that she is staying in because she knows that this is her shot. Note that she is making Huckabee like references to miracles.

Congratulations to Senator Clinton

Hillary Clinton is way ahead 64-29 percent with 45% of the vote in. Congratulations to Clinton supporters; I know that many of you walked many miles, knocked on lots of doors and made a ton of phone calls for your candidate. Enjoy your win.

Now back to Ollie as usual….

Pssst: as a comparison:

Idaho 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 79%
Clinton 17%
Obama +62%

Hawaii 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 76%
Clinton 24%
Obama +52%

Alaska 3 Electoral Votes
Obama 75%
Clinton 25%
Obama +50%

Washington 11 Electoral Votes
Obama 68%
Clinton 31%
Obama +37%

Georgia 15 Electoral Votes (Competitive with Bob Barr)
Obama 67%
Clinton 31%
Obama +36%

Colorado 9 Electoral Votes
Obama 67%
Clinton 32%
Obama +35%

Minnesota 10 Electoral Votes
Obama 66%
Clinton 32%
Obama +34%

And as Poblano pointed out this morning, No Democrat has won the White House while losing Washington, D.C….

Barack Obama won Washington D.C. by 52%…

52%…

52%…

So Obama has seen the light and will concede. Really.

(APPLAUSE) Thank you. We began this campaign sixteen months ago on a cold day in Springfield, Illinois. Now, more than thirty million votes later, we’ve built a grassroots political organization, fueled by volunteers and donations from millions of Americans. After forty-eight contests, we’ve won 32 primaries and caucuses to Senator Clinton’s 17. We’ve earned over sixteen million votes — more than anyone else — and we’ve won over 1,600 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1,444.

If we continued this campaign, we’d be on pace to secure a majority of delegates by May 20. Recently, we overtook Senator Clinton’s lead among the superdelegates, the insiders who can — if they choose — overturn the will of the people. After tonight, we’d need just 145 more delegates to claim victory, less than half the number needed by Clinton.

* JedReport’s diary :: ::
*

But tonight, the people of West Virginia have spoken, and I must accept their verdict, which is that Hillary Clinton should be the next presidential nominee of the Democratic party.

I understand the historical legacy that has led to tonight’s results, but I have no hard feelings. Change is not easy — I’ve always understood that.

And despite efforts by other campaigns and some in the media to goad me into labeling the people of West Virginia as this or that, I understand that doing so would be divisive, counter-productive, and bad for our country. In short, it would be unpresidential.

But none of that matters now. What’s important is that another 0.7% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention have been selected, and most of them will be supporting Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, in turn, has argued that those delegates are worth more than others. There is no easy response to such a compelling argument.

Consequently, I am announcing that effective immediately, I am suspending my presidential campaign.

It’s painful decision, but it’s the right one, dictated by my sense of honor and duty and devotion to the democratic principles upon which this nation is founded.[...]

Oh wait, that was snark. Beware of what JedReport says.

Nevertheless, I am thinking of switching to John McCain. Why? Well, Bush has done such a good job and:

Uhhh, maybe not.

Note: a congressional seat in Mississippi has changed from red to blue, though the R’s ran against Obama.

Results for the Mississippi First District special election, filling the seat of Senator Roger Wicker.

93% of Precincts Reporting

Travis W. Childers (D): 53% (54029)
Greg Davis (R): 47% (47361)

Update: The AP has called the race for Travis Childers. Mississippi now has three Democratic Representatives…out of four.

Update #2: Congratulations to Rep.-elect Travis Childers, his staff and volunteers, the voters of Mississippi’s First District, the DCCC…and the good people at Swing State Project, Cotton Mouth Blog, The Thorn Papers, Will Bardwell, and anyone I’m forgetting

Update #3: The NRCC spent over $1.3 million in this race, and that’s not counting what shadow groups like Freedom’s Watch put in. It’s an R+10 district. They ran some ads which were nasty as hell. And their candidate, if not outstanding, was not especially controversial.

We beat them anyway, on their turf.

Update #4: Turnout was astronomical. Especially for a runoff. It’s likely that it will exceed 100,000 votes, which is insane; turnout was around 64,000 in the first election.

Workout notes 5 more miles; I avoided the rain, but some of the route lacked sidewalks.