Hillary Wins Kentucky… Polls Show Divided Dem Party
May 20th, 2008 at 10:22pm Matt Margolis
Hillary scores big victory Kentucky while Obama has won a majority of pledged delegates.
Clinton won Kentucky by more than 30 points, but Obama’s share of the state’s 51 delegates was enough put him over the threshold, according to CNN estimates.
Obama’s top strategist, David Axelrod, said this was an “important milestone,” but not the end of the trail.
A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the Democratic nomination. Obama has 1,932 total delegates, while Clinton has 1,753.
After Kentucky’s results came in, Clinton thanked her supporters for handing her a victory “even in the face of some pretty tough odds.”
“Tonight we have achieved an important victory,” Clinton said in Louisville.
“It’s not just Kentucky bluegrass that’s music to my ears. It’s the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of some pretty tough odds.”
Clinton beat Obama across all age groups, income groups and education levels in Kentucky.
Eighty-nine percent of Tuesday’s voters in Kentucky were white, according to the exit polls. Among them, Clinton won 72-22 percent. Nine percent of the voters were African-American and they overwhelmingly broke for Obama, 87-7 percent.
While Camp Obama may be patting themselves on the back for hitting their milestone, there’s some bleak news that may or may not influence superdelegates:
The exit polls from Kentucky also suggest a deep division among Democrats. Video Watch how Clinton’s win could affect the race »
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.
I’m looking forward to November.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
35 Comments
1. Kahn | May 20th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Well now. The majority of the people have voted for Hillary. The VAST MAJORITY of the people have voted for Hillary.
But the MACHINE is for Obama.
“Democrats” remember that next time you bring up 2000. You are apparently about to ignore the will of the people in your party to choose a socialist as your candidate. I know you little socialists think thats great. Well, so do I actually.
2. Eric T | May 20th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
“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.”
This is maybe a reason that Rush’s Operation Chaos, should switch to push Obama ahead.
Alot of potential McCain voters!!!
3. Kahn | May 20th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Listening to Geraldine Ferraro, I wonder if the middle/left has come to the realization that the party has come under the control of the Soros (extreme) left? If that is the case - they may indeed vote for McCain. McCain has positions similar to some conservative Democrats.
There is only one way to break the log jam in Washington. And that is for the two different shades of middle work together. We see the majority of Republicans rejecting the further right in the McCain choice. But we see the Democrats fail to move to the middle with their choice.
I wonder if Clinton would have the courage to mount an independent campaign? Or what would we do if McCain put her on OUR ticket? (I know, I know just speculating.) Think about that though. McCain-Clinton.
I wasn’t happy with McCain. But, well I actually think we could win in the fall if the Democrats don’t remember McGovern.
McCain-Clinton!
4. Dennis | May 21st, 2008 at 12:14 am
Kahn | May 20th, 2008 at 10:37 pm: “Well now. The majority of the people have voted for Hillary. The VAST MAJORITY of the people have voted for Hillary.”
That would be the vast majority in Kentucky - not nationwide, Khan. And having lived there I can affirm that much as I love the state, a lot of rural Kentucky is still pretty tightly wedded to old racist attitudes the rest of the country has grown beyond. You can’t extrapolate national preferences from Kentucky results.
There is a reason Clinton trounced Obama in Kentucky and W Virginia, which has much to do with education levels, and of course the realization that when Bill Clinton was president the lower middle class did much better than they are doing now. That is a factor Hillary has used to great advantage in these areas.
Her appeal to these voters will not translate into a similar national advantage; her campaign knows this, and so do the superdelegates. They are looking at the mobilization of millions of young new voters who are educated, idealistic and likely to be politically active for decades to come.
As for a McCain-Clinton ticket, it is an interesting idea that I doubt has a ghost of a chance. But even more appealing to me was the idea floated in a Washington Post commentary on Sunday - an Obama-Hagel ticket. I always have admired Chuck Hagel as an independent and pragmatic centrist, and such a ticket could promote a more bipartisan spirit in Congress. Here is an excerpt:
“…By picking a GOP running mate, Obama would outdo McCain — and in the process make some enemies in his own party. That would make him a more appealing candidate, I suspect.
“Hagel would be an especially interesting choice for Obama. As a decorated Vietnam veteran, he would add some national security heft to the ticket. And he was also an early and courageous GOP critic of the Iraq war, which would reinforce one of the most powerful themes of Obama’s campaign. At the same time, although Hagel agrees with Obama on the need for withdrawal from Iraq, his military credentials would reassure U.S. allies that it would not be a pell-mell retreat.
“A final advantage is that Hagel and Obama seem to like each other. Hagel is said to view Obama as a politician with a special gift who might actually be able to bring the country together. Whether Democrats could accept Hagel’s pro-life views and other aspects of his Republican identity is a complicated question, but here again, bipartisanship is about bridging hard issues… ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603435.html
5. Kahn | May 21st, 2008 at 12:57 am
Dennis, Yah. I was being inflammatory with the word “vast”. Only a significant majority of the people have voted for Clinton. Yes, it’s true. Look it up, add up the numbers and include Michigan and Florida. The Democrat Star Chamber is going to reject the will of the people.
Obama won’t choose Hagel because Obama is an extreme leftist. He would have to pick Rosie O’Donnell to match his views. But I doubt the McCain-Clinton thing also.
Though it would be funny in a horror movie kind of way.
Meanwhile, your party is now bought and paid for (they’re words) by Soros front groups and you will reap the wrath of that terrible truth.
M-c-G-o-v-e-r-n, for crying out loud NIXON crushed him.
6. Jeremiah | May 21st, 2008 at 1:10 am
There is a reason Clinton trounced Obama in Kentucky and W Virginia, which has much to do with education levels–Dennis.
No, I’m afraid you’re wrong, Dennis.
We hillbillies the only ones with any smarts around these parts.
Ya know, we got sense enough to realize we want to keep our Second Omendment Riots.
What was it? Obama said something about that…People clinging to their guns and religion”
Me thinks Obama is bigoted against hunters and Christians…
He make me mad.
Obama gonna git hisself in some hot water fer talkin’ like ‘at…
7. Kahn | May 21st, 2008 at 1:14 am
But Dennis, on rereading your post. So people that don’t vote for Obama are uneducated racists?
The possible latent racial hatred and ties to black racist nutjobs - no effect?
The Obama comments on God and guns - no effect?
The fact that his proposed programs add up to a 60% tax hike actually representing a significant shift towards socialism - no effect?
The fear that he actually plans to just pull out of Iraq and the surrounding nations and just HOPE that everything works out - no effect?
OK. I didn’t realize the Internet extended to other planets. Just ignorant racists eh?
Dennis, I’m going to do you a favor you may not deserve. Read this:
http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html
8. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 2:31 am
Hmmm. Let’s recall the Republican Primary. All those Romney voters who vowed never to vote for McCain because of his dirty campaign-tricks and his blatant lies during the debates; all those Huckabee voters who vowed to stay at home or vote a third candidate when McCain would get the nomination; all those Ron Paul voters who are still voting for Ron Paul.
McCain is still pandering to the fundamentalist conservatives in his party (right now the war hawks, last week the gun nuts), while he should be courting moderates and independents. McCain will have a huge problem getting his people out to vote for him come November. He would need at least a fundamentalist as his running mate to get the fundies in droves to the polling stations: but then he’ll loose the moderates. Or a moderate to get the moderates and independents to vote for him, but then he’ll loose the fundies.
I project a lot of dissatisfied conservatives might end up voting for Bob Barr.
Sure. There still will be Hillary supporters who won’t vote for Obama in November. That doesn’t mean they will vote for McCain though.
And a lot of them will make the same journey Geraldine Ferraro made. Monday she said she would vote McCain if Hillary wouldn’t get the nomination. On Tuesday she already said that would be stupid.
And unlike McCain, Obama has a lot of possible candidates for running mates that would have a huge appeal to republicans, moderates and independents, without alienating the left of the party.
McCain was the only palatable candidate for the Republicans because he was viewed as a Republican in Name Only. You guys despised him before he started winning the nomination. But it’s the Democratic Party that’s in trouble.
Another problem for Republican: money.
9. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 2:50 am
Kahn:
As compared to McCain’s sentiments in the 2000 campaign when he said Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were “agents of intolerance” who were “pandering to the outer reaches of American politics”?
No. I don’t think it will have much effect. Because it is a sentiment that is shared by a lot of Americans.
By the way. Did you read that guide “How to Win Friends and Influence People” and wondered who is better capable of those things: Obama or McCain?
McCain has even trouble with the most basic ones. Smile for instance.
10. Dennis | May 21st, 2008 at 3:02 am
Khan, as a youngster I was raised in the American south. Actually my family lived in Asia until I was of school age, but from then until my teen years I was inculcated with southern attitudes. I wasn’t aware of my own racial prejudices until my high school years, north of the Mason Dixon line.
Indeed education, travel and the synthesis of information has a lot to do with racial attitudes. That is not elitism, it’s simply observation of human nature. People fear the unknown, and until you become familiar with the “other” it can be threatening.
As an adult I’ve traveled on several continents including the Middle East and Africa. I’ve had the opportunity to observe other cultures and put my childhood years into a broader perspective. I see humanity as a more complex whole than I possibly could have, had I been limited to a southern upbringing and life. This is just plain common sense.
This is why I understand Obama’s innate desire to move beyond superficial divisions of party or race and govern on the basis of common human values. He, like me, has had a multicultural upbringing and has had to work through issues of racial identity and prejudice that certain others have not.
People in places like rural Kentucky can’t be expected to embrace a candidate like Barack Obama without some kind of learning curve, a process by which they come to realize he is an American also and find a basis for trusting him. For some this may not happen until he’s been president for a while. For others who’ve been exposed to the broader world by either education or demographics, this is not an issue.
I have an abiding love for the people of Appalachia, where I’ve spent a lot of time and have good friends, but I don’t expect them to share my enthusiasm for Obama yet. Most will come to appreciate him in time, as they learn more fully who he is and what he stands for.
Today’s election results are hardly surprising. Yes, they are a reflection of limited information (another way of saying education levels) but information is power. And I’m all for empowering everyone. Education, travel and knowing many different kinds of people has a remarkable way of neutralizing fear and broadening possibilities. After nearly eight years of myopic, paranoid leadership it’s high time for America to elect a president with a realistic grasp of the human condition, one willing to challenge and engage our higher possibilities.
11. Freedom1 | May 21st, 2008 at 3:14 am
Barack HUSSEIN Obama- DIVIDER Not a Uniter.
Change!
12. CanadianObserver | May 21st, 2008 at 9:23 am
10. Dennis | May 21st, 2008 at 3:02 am
No argument with those comments.
Excellent insight, Dennis!
13. SEW | May 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
“a lot of rural Kentucky is still pretty tightly wedded to old racist attitudes the rest of the country has grown beyond.” Dennis
Are you referring to the 92% of blacks nationwide that vote for Barry Some Obama? Or the 75% of whites voting for HRC? Seems like 92% is much more racist than 75%. Oh, that’s right, BO & MO are black, so they get the liberal free pass.
14. SEW | May 21st, 2008 at 9:43 am
“Eighty-nine percent of Tuesday’s voters in Kentucky were white, according to the exit polls. Among them, Clinton won 72-22 percent. Nine percent of the voters were African-American and they overwhelmingly broke for Obama, 87-7 percent.”
Dennis, are you referring to the black racists?
15. Some Assembly Required | May 21st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Oregon was a closed Primary and Obama dominated. I’m not entirely sure I agree the dem. party is divided. I think your in for a rude awakening come November.
16. SEW | May 21st, 2008 at 10:10 am
SAR, Maybe this will help your closed to reality mind.
“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.”
17. Zach | May 21st, 2008 at 10:15 am
“McCain is still pandering to the fundamentalist conservatives in his party (right now the war hawks, last week the gun nuts), while he should be courting moderates and independents.”
I was at the NRA convention last weekend. I actually got to shake hands with John and Cindy McCain after John McCain addressed us NRA members. The fact that you wright people off as “gun-nuts” really is insulting to someone like me. I was there to celebrate the 2nd amendment. A right that was fought and died for by many, and continues to this day.
I would also submit to you that there are/were alot of Independent and Democratic voters at the NRA convention. McCain was very smart to address these people.
One thing is for sure. For NRA members such as myself, theres a very clear difference between the candidates this year…Obama is probably one largest and most recent anti-gun candidates that we’ve seen for awhile.
18. Some Assembly Required | May 21st, 2008 at 10:20 am
SEW, people say many things. I remember people saying they’d never support McCain. It is almost June, a far cry from November. If you honestly believe people will not vote for Obama in November because Clinton didn’t get the nom. it is you who needs the reality check.
Cinton and Obama are running on almost Identical Platforms. So much so they were criticized for it in debates because voters were having a tough time deciding between the two. It wasn’t long after this Wright came into play, among other things. The rest is all just talk, talk, talk. People want Clinton in so they say they won’t vote for Obama, but you can mark my words, as soon as Obama becomes the nom. there will be a completely different tune being sung.
19. SEW | May 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
“If you honestly believe people will not vote for Obama in November because Clinton didn’t get the nom. it is you who needs the reality check.”
Hey SAR, I simply presented what Democrat voters said. That son, is reality. Projecting on what you think in your mind is not reality.
20. Pain | May 21st, 2008 at 10:42 am
1. Kahn | May 20th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
We see you got the National Review talking point this morning. The goal in the race for the Democratic party nomination hinges on gaining 2026 delegates to the convention by combining pledged delegates from caucuses and primaries and superdelegate committments. Only the MSM is drumbeating about popular vote.
But We, Ourselves of the Collective expected this sort of invective when a black candidate became the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party. Unlike many on the left We do not hold the opinion that voting against Obama is racist. No, on the contrary if white America votes for McCain it will not mean they are racist it merely means they are stupid.
21. Some Assembly Required | May 21st, 2008 at 10:46 am
What I based my ‘projection’ on was what has already happen so far this year with the republican party my friend. As in what reps. said and what their actually doing.
22. SEW | May 21st, 2008 at 10:51 am
“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.”
23. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Zach
So you were one of those who were required to leave their weapons outside too? You know, turning the convention centre into a gun-free zone because the organizers were afraid one of their members might be upset with McCain and wanting to harm him.
And these are the same people who think schools should allow teenage-students to bring weapons into the schools?
24. Zach | May 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Come on…
Thats a pretty weak arguement to make. Yes, I had to surrender my knife for about four hours. Whoopty-doo. (I did have to wait in line for about 2 hours before I got it back.)
McCain wasn’t the only one there. Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Kailey Bay Hutchison, Oliver North, were among others that were presenting speeches during the same forum that McCain did.
The fact that you think that that means that the NRA, or some NRA member wants to harm John McCain is laughable.
“And these are the same people who think schools should allow teenage-students to bring weapons into the schools?”
Where do you get such insight? haha. Are you lumping me into that group? I never said that, nor would I support anything like that. And I’m a NRA member..(obviously).
Got anything stronger?
25. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
From your brothers-in-arms at this very board and in the entire right-wing section of the republican party. Every time there is a massacre on a campus, you can hear the demands. Don’t be obtuse.
And every time something like that happens, the sensible NRA-members (who I’m sure there are) keep their mouth shut.
26. bob | May 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
some assembly required, do you know what you talking about? that kind of talk just indicates what is wrong with our country…..what part are you from?
27. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
zach, read here:
http://blogsforvictory.com/2007/12/11/some-real-gun-control/
28. Zach | May 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“Every time there is a massacre on a campus, you can hear the demands. Don’t be obtuse.”
Name them, where are they?
I demand that theres more ARMED SECURITY. I’ve suggested that teachers can be given the option to become trained in hand gun basics and also be granted to have a firearm LOCKED somewhere in there classroom for emergency use. Is that not reasonable?
I’ve never thought it was a good idea to let students arm themselves in school.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I dont recall hearing the NRA demand that all students (no matter that age.) be able to arm themselves while in class.
29. Zach | May 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Your link provided some insight. I would disagree with anyone who believes that ALL students be allowed to arm themselves in school.
I believe my other point still stands.
30. Willem van Oranje | May 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Zach, you mean this one?
Then why did the NRA turn the convention centre into a gun-free zone?
31. Zach | May 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
For the most part of the link you provided, I believe the concensus argreed with what i’ve put forth..
Sorry this thread has gotten abit off topic
32. Zach | May 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Then why did the NRA turn the convention centre into a gun-free zone?”
I’m sorry but if you wanna believe that then go ahead…I feel that that assertion is lame is not worth the effort to argue.
33. Jeremiah | May 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
but I don’t expect them to share my enthusiasm for Obama yet. Most will come to appreciate him in time, as they learn more fully who he is and what he stands for.–Dennis.
And that’s the scary part, Dennis, what he stands for!
The part you will find out about him in due time…blind idiots learn the hard way.
34. Kahn | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 am
Dennis,
Well I grew up in liberal Northampton Massachusetts. Home to Smith College and close to Amherst and U-Mass Amherst. hardly rural Kentucky. My first real taste of racial hatred came during Marine Basic Training at Parris Island.
My platoon was largely made up of blacks from the same high school in Florida who had been in a Marine Junior ROTC program together. I saw them lie for each other, hurt people for each other, and stick together like glue AGAINST the whites in the unit.
Yes. MY first experience with racial hatred was from blacks.
So the coal miners and workers are too ignorant to be good Democrats now eh? OK, whatever. Thats the Unions - you know. Disintegrate your party any way you see fit.
I say Obama is elitist. You say the white masses are too ignorant to vote correctly. Better look up the word elitist.
Oh and Pain, except that I made my posts the night before this supposed talking point. I don’t read the National Review and I think for myself. A trait sadly lacking on your side of the aisle.
But hey - run Obama. Its your choice. Well, not the choice of the people, but the choice of the super delegates. But whatever. Why care what the people think? Dennis thinks they’re just ignorant savages anyways.
35. Brett Michaels | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 am
Kahn,
You mean you knew negros that were not addicted to welfare?
Perish the thought! According to you allz us negros be addicted to dat welfare check and dats why we vote democrat. Cuz weez toos dumbz to noes any better.
Back to reality…
The behavior you describe is not condoned and quite frankly you were a coward for not bumping it up the chain of command. You allowed another Marine to conduct himself in a manner unbecoming a Marine and more important endanger other Marines.
Since you are no longer enlisted, post their names. I’ll look them up in the ARC.
In short I think your story is false. but if their records jive with what I find in ARC I’ll post a public appology.