West Virginia open thread

CNN's Gloria Borger says exit polls show half of West Virginia voters believe "Obama shares Reverend Wright's values." LOL. Well, at least they're well-informed! [/sarcasm]

Also, Obama is getting 28% of the white vote, according to Bill Schneider. So... uh... I guess maybe he might crack 30% overall?

Then there's this.

Anyway, I just turned off the TV, but if anyone else is still watching and wants to comment on the results, fire away.

UPDATE: With 47 percent of the precincts reporting, it's Clinton 65%, Obama 28%, Edwards 7%.

Meanwhile, in the much more exciting MS-1 congressional special election, it's Childers (D) 51%, Davis (R) 49% with 80 percent of the precincts in. This is a district that Bush won by 25% in 2004, and would be an absolutely huge victory for the Democrats, portending doom in November for the Republicans.

UPDATE 2: According to Daily Kos, the AP has called the race for the Democrat, Childers. Amazing. Cue GOP panic!

Comments

[Jim]

Hillary sounds like a sports announcer when she says that 'no Democrat has won the White House since 1914 or some shit without winning WV.'

I've learned over the years that in both politics and sports, stats like this mean nothing to the game at hand.

[Brendan]

I want to Hillary say that exactly as you just said it. :)

[Jim]

Wow. I'm going through these exit polls now. Wow. Where do these people get news from? Look at how many people think Clinton is honest! That's *demonstrably* incorrect.

[Alasdair]

Jim - I wonder how many of 'em goet paid to say that with $3 Bills ?

(grin)

[copndor]

If I were Obama, I would view losing in West Virginia as a victory.

[Brendan]

LOL, Jim!

[Andrew]

There is nothing particularly outlandish in the exit polls. I've found eyebrow-raising results in every exit poll sample I've reviewed the past few months.

[Jim]

I guess you haven't looked at the "Who is honest and trustworthy" question yet on CNN's exit polls then.

[JD]

A completely random thought:

Yesterday I was listening to the "Wicked" soundtrack and when I heard these lines in the song "One short day":

Who's the mage
Whose major itinerary
Is making all Oz merrier?
Who's the sage
Who's sagely sailed in to save our posteriors?

I thought that if you change "Oz" to "us", doesn't it sound a little like some of the more...enthusiastic members of Obama's fan club?

(Disclaimer: This post contains no comparison, implied or otherwise, of Hillary Clinton and the Wicked Witch of the West.)

[Braylon]

CNN's Gloria Borger says exit polls show half of West Virginia voters believe "Obama shares Reverend Wright's values." LOL. Well, at least they're well-informed! [/sarcasm]

Why is it outside the realm of reality that people have that belief? Just because you don't agree with that doesn't make it any less believable.

I have no idea if Obama shares the Rev's views or not. He can say that he doesn't and we can take him at his word, but who really knows for certain.

[Jim]

Reverse that question. Do you believe you can make a credible argument that he *does* share Wright's beliefs? Has he ever taken a position that reflects those beliefs?

[Andrew]

I don't disagree that the GOP is facing tough headwinds in November, however, special elections are not a reliable weather vane. This is one of those memes that seems to survive and thrive despite all available evidence and historical examples that substantially discount their predictive value. In any case, the GOP should panic because, as the right-track/wrong-track polls indicate, Republicans are just as pissed off with their elected officials as Democrats and independents are with their's. Hence the very low turnout in the special election. (Only 50,000 votes clinches the congressional race? Wow!)

[Braylon]

Reverse that question. Do you believe you can make a credible argument that he *does* share Wright's beliefs? Has he ever taken a position that reflects those beliefs?

You're asking an attorney if they can make a credible argument. Is the Pope a Catholic?!!?

There is no argument to be made though.

Like I said. Obama said he doesn't share the Rev's beliefs, and we can only take him at his word.

As such, there are going to be people who feel he is not being honest based on how he handled the whole situation.

Again, just because you or I believe he is being honest, it's not out of the realm of reality that others do not share that same belief.

[Jim]

"Like I said. Obama said he doesn't share the Rev's beliefs, and we can only take him at his word."

No, we can ask ourselves, is there a credible argument to be made that he shares those beliefs.

I'll note that you passed on attempting to create one.

Perhaps that is because, in fact, there is no credible argument that can be constructed to support the assumption that Obama shares Wright's controversial beliefs.

[Youngblai]

Um, Jim, here's a credible argument:

He sat in that church for 20 years, got married by the man, had his children baptized by the man, and only broke when it was obvious the man was quite willing to drown him in order to continue gaining his own fame.

Now, I'm not saying _I_ believe he shares the man's views, but I'm also not someone who has gone to the same church for 20 years, etc., etc.. Perhaps people who have that thought process are those who have and, since they're lock-step with their preacher, assume that Obama is also.

Life's about perspectives, and we are judged by the company we keep. Of course, if we the American people keep being silly about this, we'll end up with arrogant loners who have only superficial friends running for President.

[Jim]

"Life's about perspectives, and we are judged by the company we keep. Of course, if we the American people keep being silly about this, we'll end up with arrogant loners who have only superficial friends running for President."

Ding.

"He sat in that church for 20 years, got married by the man, had his children baptized by the man, and only broke when it was obvious the man was quite willing to drown him in order to continue gaining his own fame."

That's not a credible argument though. Looking at the first aspect, which one of those activities even implies an acceptence by Obama of Wright's political beliefs? None.

Looking at the second aspect... Obama broke with Wright when it became obvious Wright was quite willing to drown him in order to continue gaining his own fame. So what part of that implies acceptance of political beliefs?

[Jim]

Also, just a note... I'm not attempting to argue that the average person might hold the belief, I'm attempting to argue that there is no basis for it. It'd be difficult to argue that people will act rationally on a night when WV votes.

I bring that up because Youngblai's comment was leaning towards broad generalizations about people and what they do, where as my original response to Braylon was about *his specific* mention that one can only take Obama at his word. Which I believe to be false, one should not even consider his word, one should consider only his actions.

[Jim Hu]

That's not a credible argument though. Looking at the first aspect, which one of those activities even implies an acceptence by Obama of Wright's political beliefs? None.
As all you bright lawyers know (and as you shouldn't have to be reminded by a biochemist), it all depends on the where the burden of proof lies, and what constitutes acceptable evidence. Jim seems to be arguing from a position where Obama is innocent of sharing Wright's views until proven guilty. But a) we're not trying him for a crime, he's asking us for our vote and b) it simply isn't the standard we apply to everyone else in Politics. Obama is hardly the first, politician to be attacked based on the company he kept.

For the record, I don't think Obama believes that America should be damned or that the government created AIDS or crack. But I don't have anything that I can think of other than his word while running for office and my subjective impression of him.

As Braylon recounts, Obama's opponents have their list of reasons to be suspicious about what Obama's beliefs are. This might not be enough to indict him for anything, but it seems to me that it's reasonable to put the burden of proof on the Obama supporters to show why voters should ignore those suspicions when chosing between Obama and someone they think is less likely to share Wright's more toxic beliefs.

Note also that Obama doesn't have to share any of Wright's toxic beliefs for the association to be problematic to some voters. Part of the question is whether he condoned them, excused them, rationalized them, or even merely failed to voice his objections before now. In other words, what will Obama fight for, even if it's only rhetorically?

[JD]

Life's about perspectives, and we are judged by the company we keep. Of course, if we the American people keep being silly about this, we'll end up with arrogant loners who have only superficial friends running for President.

Then I still have a chance!!!

[USC 2L]

Anybody have any link talking about or showing how the turnout was? Was it heavy, expected, less than expected?

[Ed]

The New York Times reported a heavy turnout.

Here we have a heavily presumptive nominee getting his head handed to him. 50% Don't Trust factor among Dem voters? 67-23 loss to a woman whose campaign is already proclaimed dead?

New polling that shows HRC beats McCain 60-40 in the general in WV, but BHO loses 55-45?

It is increasingly clear - crystal clear - that HRC is the more formidable opponent of McCain. I think either Dem wins, but if I am a Super, I would have little trouble supporting HRC at the convention.

[USC 2L]

HRC would get crushed in the general precisely because of what it would take for her to get the Dem nomination. Absent a dead hooker showing up somewhere in Chicago, she would have to take this to the convention. And at the convention, she would have to take sup...err, automatic delegates (and maybe even pledged delegates) away in a manner that will look so back room that it will destroy the party.

So what would be the result? Obama's base won't vote for her. Republicans will go to the polls to make sure she loses. And McCain will eat out a good chunk of her base.

It would be a bloodbath.

[MumZ]

Best commenting on this I have heard came from BBC News- that the polls showed HRC had won West Virginia, and that the only ones who think that there is anything significant about this were HRC's campaign people.

[Joe Mama]

And McCain will eat out a good chunk of her base.

Poor verb choice there re Hillary ;-)

[Youngblai]

Personally, all I think HRC earned was the right to continue. Sort of like a death row inmate who is strapped in the chair when there's a multi-state power failure gets to continue with life. ("Dammit Father, we told you confession was taking too long!") Eventually the power's going to come back on, the governor's not going to call, and someone's riding the lightning. Question is, does she take the party with her?

Speaking of grievously wounded parties, I think the special election is ominous for Clan Rogue Elephant. How ominous? At this point I think only an HRC convention win keeps the House from becoming 2/3rds Dem, and I'm thinking the filibuster margin in the Senate might be in danger.

Now, why does HRC change this (for those of you arguing electability)? Because trust me, as someone from a Republican family, you will have people awaking from comas to vote against the Clintons. Obama--enh, not so much.

[Joe Mama]

That's not a credible argument though.

Following up on what Jim Hu said, believing that Obama shares all or part of the views of his pastor for 20 years with whom he had a very close relationship is entirely credible. I'm not saying I believe that Obama agrees with Wright's "Goddamn America" remarks and the like (because I don't), but it's at least as credible -- if not more so -- to argue that Obama may hold those same beliefs as it is to argue that Obama in no way, shape or form can hold those beliefs . . . which is what the other Jim is saying.

Again, I don't believe Obama holds those same noxious beliefs that Wright does . . . I just think Obama lied through his teeth when he said he didn't know about them.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Obama lost the un-educated white guy who loves his gun vote. Seriously, does anyone think this demographic will vote for ANY Democrat in November? They haven't since 1980. Why would they start now?

[Youngblai]

A&A,

I think there was reason to believe it this year. That "uneducated white guy who loves his gun" has watched the economy go to sh*t, been told that it's the fat cats in business who have done it to him, and watched as the GOP increasingly supported those fat cats over, you know, the folks they allegedly had a contract with in 1994.
So, yeah, I think if the Dems had played this right, things would have been really ugly for the Republicans. Unfortunately for the Dems, they have an inexperienced Illinois Senator with rather interesting friends and Lady Macbeth made flesh. This is why what should be a 20-25 point landslide (yeah, I think people are that p*ssed) is going to actually be a race.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I think it is unfortunate, but looking at the upcoming states, I think Hillary may surpass Obama in the popular vote while lagging in delegates. That could really make for a nasty convention fight.

I know all the Dem pundits out there are saying this isn't going to the convention. I say it is. Call it "convention wisdom" ;-)

[Angrier and Angrier]

I was listening to Karl Rove on Fox the other night and he made a good point. He said the reason the Democrats can't capitalize on these folks during hard economic times is because the Republicans effectively play the lower-tax card. It seems like no matter how much gun-loving, uneducated white guys get abused by the Republicans, the minute you say "tax cuts" and wave God, guns and gays, they pull the lever for the Republican.

[Brendan Loy]

The question, Angrier, is: which popular vote?

If I were Obama, I would make a deal with the Clinton campaign to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, thus removing that festering sore of uncertainty from the process, provided that: 1) Obama gets all of the Uncommitted delegates from Michigan, and 2) Hillary agrees to include the "Uncommitted" votes from Michigan in her "popular vote" count (in press releases, on her website, in conversations with superdelegates, etc.), and 3) Hillary further agrees to use the established estimates from the Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington caucuses, rather than excluding those states from her count.

If she does those things, the most Hillary can hope for is a virtual tie in the popular vote... maybe a 50,000-vote win, fueled by a Puerto Rico blowout. No way does that sway the supers. And then we can have an honest discussion, instead of relying on all this stupid fuzzy math. Obama can then point out that the possible dead heat, or narrow Hillary win, in the popular vote, is entirely the result of: 1) the coincidence that many of his best states had caucuses instead of primaries (his percentage margins would have been lower, but his raw margins higher, if they'd had primaries), whereas all of her best states had primaries; 2) the fact that, even making the allowance for the Uncommitted vote, the shenanigans in Michigan and Florida clearly suppressed his totals; and 3) the fact that he hadn't "peaked" yet on Super Tuesday (polls show he'd win California, New Jersey, etc. today). She can respond with her own spin, but he's got the better arguments, and the supers will see that.

If Obama were to do this, he'd still win the nomination, and she'd have fewer talking points that would allow her to justify a convention fight.

[Jim]

"believing that Obama shares all or part of the views of his pastor for 20 years with whom he had a very close relationship is entirely credible."

Yet we have no evidence that he has ever once in his public or private life espoused these beliefs.

I mean, the entire premise of the argument is laughable. Should I start pulling other people from his life and assigning those beliefs to him too? Perhaps we can find a white racist that he knew for a long time. In fact, I do believe we could make Obama look schizophrenic if we were to assume that he holds the values of various people in his life about thinking critically about whether or not he has ever advocated these ideas himself.

And in reference to the trial mentality, no, that's not the point... this isn't an effort to attempt to construct some unreasonable bar that must be crossed. The point is that people don't think critically enough about the information they are given.

The gut reaction to the Wright scandal makes sense. He sat there and listened to those words. But then you think critically. And you realize that one, we have no evidence that those outlandish claims made up a large portion of the sermons. And two, we have no evidence Obama agrees with them.

We literally must resort to the Manchurian candidate theory to believe he holds Wright's beliefs. How anyone can with a straight face assert Obama holds these beliefs and has somehow been secretive about it his whole life, just waiting for the chance to what, come out of the closet as some sort of black muslim bela lugosi ready to suck the blood of americans from the white house? It's ridiculous, come on.

[Jim]

Oh, but yes, having concerns about his saying *he didn't know* are legitimate. But that's a different question than what we are discussing here.

[JO]

Jim, we know you love the Obaminator. You can quit arguing with yourself already.
;-D

[Jim]

"You can quit arguing with yourself already."

Gee, that's right, because each time when I quote and then respond, those are my quotes, not the quotes of various other people. ::rolls eyes::

Listen, this isn't about Obama. MoveOn's criticism of McCain over working with people who also work with dictators is equally as ridiculous. Guilt by association is bull.

[Youngblai]

There is a difference between "know" and "let be an authority figure to your children." That, I think, is the particular angel doing the foxtrot on the pinhead in question.

See, I have thought critically about this one. I think about the pastor's role in a major church, especially a pastor that Obama apparently knew closely enough to use one of his sermons for the title of his book. Now, as an author myself, I'm not quoting someone, much less using a quote for a title, unless there is some deep respect there.

Now, does respect = belief? Not necessarily, and that's why I would not condemn Obama for those remarks alone. However, I think that there is a distressing pattern emerging from this and other associations. It's not Revered Wright's words I have a problem with, it's that pattern.

Now, if your come back is that he had to do _something_ to get credibility with the African-American community, I'll agree that this is a plausible explanation. However, one's choices have consequences and, unfortunately, the particular bill in this one is that people hear a man of the cloth saying "Goddamn America..." and have a visceral reaction. Doesn't help that Wright refused to stay out of the limelight (with help from a Clinton associate) and that less than two months after saying he couldn't repudiate the man Obama did it.

Like I said--not a dealbreaker, but definitely further evidence. Unfortunately for Obama, further evidence might be all the jury of the people need. Depends on how much harder Hillary hits him and then what else happens in the campaign. If he makes it to the general, Obama's lucky that his opponent who would prefer to lose honorably than win at all costs (which is not a bad thing in the least for the nation's health. However, McCain doesn't have sufficient control of the GOP to prevent other actors from saying, "Why yes, I'll take the warhead with the cobalt jacket, thanks...", and this campaign could turn loose some terrible things.

As I've said recently, "It doesn't feel like 1860, but I wouldn't argue if someone said this election feels like 1856 with regards to divisiveness."

[Angrier and Angrier]

Okay, on the Wright thing...

Some of my best friends, who I have known for years and years, are Bush-supporting Republicans. Does that make me a Republican?

Some of my closest friends have cheated on their wives. Does that mean I have cheated on mine? (FYI - No)

I have friends who have had DUIs. Does that mean I have a DUI?

[JO]

Ummm, it was a joke. I did put the smiley at the end!! Sheesh.

[Jomo]

A&A.

If you knowingly sat by while they were DUI'ing and cheating on their wifes and did or said nothing, then yes, I would say you condone those actions.

If on the other hand, you were not present or privy to those actions while they were occurring or stepped back and said "Whoa. I am totally not cool with those actions", then I would not lump you in with those people's actions.

As for the Republican friends, I'm sure you've had discussions with them on various topics of disagreement, so I hardly see how that's a logical statement. Besides, it's VERY clear your not a Republican!!

[Jim]

"There is a difference between "know" and "let be an authority figure to your children." That, I think, is the particular angel doing the foxtrot on the pinhead in question."

Well, that is a completely different question than the one that was originally raised here. If you wanted to raise this in the format you did in the quote above, I may not agree, but at least you raise a legitimate argument. Questioning Obama's judgment for sticking around, or as Joe Mama said above, for saying he didn't know, those are reasonable questions.

[Andrew]

Consider Oprah Winfrey. Oprah saw the writing on the wall and knew Wright was bad for business, so she left the church. Obama was busy trying to build street cred with the black community and gladly overlooked and tolerated Wright's wrongness. Then when white audiences gasped in horror over Wright's remarks, Obama threw him under the bus and claimed he just didn't know Wright said such things. ...And I have a bridge to sell.