Hillary Buries Obama in WV

Rick Moran
Not only was it not even close, Hillary Clinton's landslide over Obama by a 67-26 margin was a shocking rejection of the probable nominee. I believe the only thing similar in the history of campaigns were some late losses by Jimmy Carter to Idaho Senator Frank Church out west and California Governor Jerry Brown in 1976. But a 41 point blowout? That is unprecedented. 

Some thoughts from American Thinker's staff:

Ed Lasky:

As is well-known, Hillary Clinton delivered a pronounced thumping to Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary. This is in face of a steady drumbeat by the media regarding her all but "dead duck" status and repeated calls for her to give up the lost cause. The media has repeatedly all but drafted Barack Obama as the nominee before the Democratic National Convention. Historically, the media has always reported in past elections that an all but certain result leads to lower turnouts (which is why they, in principle if not in practice, say thy restrain themselves from jumping to conclusions in when Eastern states report their results in November-they do not want to induce a low-turnout). Well. what the media is not reporting-save for the National review-is that West Virginians came out in droves-the highest turnout ever for a Democratic primary  to vote for the "loser" Hillary Clinton.

What does this say? That Barack Obama not only is not as popular as his staged rallies may suggest, but that he is so unpopular that voters are eager to come out to register their dislike and disapproval. The West Virginia result is also reflected of the downward momentum that Barack Obama has experiences since the February primary month.

Added to the fact is that s substanital number of these voters said they would not consider voting for Obama if he were the nominee.

This might mean James Web has just risen upwards on Obama's VP list. He has written movingly of the people in the Appalachian belt.

Rich Baehr:

Only one third of  Hillary's voters said they would vote for Obama in the general election. She could win West Virginia against McCain, he will get blown out by McCain by 20-30 point in the state. This will feed the "poor whites are racist" charge, which will become the theme if Obama loses. . Evangelicals were blamed for Bush. Less educated whites  are the bogeyman this time.   

Why did the media anoint Obama the winner of the nominating contest after a 14% win in North Carolina, driven by 92% support from blacks (34% of electorate in the state), but ignore and demean Clinton's 41% win in West Virginia? Because when blacks vote decisively for a candidate, that delivers a mark of goodness, so long as whites (some of them) are also voting for that candidate (not a Jesse Jackson vote). . , it is fine.

The black vote is the litmus test for moral superiority. The media is  totally in the  tank for Obama- cheerleading to get the race over after NC. Thirty supers shifted to Obama this week in big numbers based on media stampede to end the race- effect and goal  was to undercut Hillary's expected big win in WV. 

Obama has won only two primaries since Wisconsin-Mississippi and NC, both dominated by black turnout. 


The results next week in Kentucky will almost certainly be very similar to those in West Virginia. Week after week, as it is proven Obama can't attract the Democrats white working class base, Obama looks more and more like a loser. Will it be enough to change the dynamics of the race once again and place Hillary in the role of rescuer?

With about three weeks to go we'll find out soon enough.
Not only was it not even close, Hillary Clinton's landslide over Obama by a 67-26 margin was a shocking rejection of the probable nominee. I believe the only thing similar in the history of campaigns were some late losses by Jimmy Carter to Idaho Senator Frank Church out west and California Governor Jerry Brown in 1976. But a 41 point blowout? That is unprecedented. 

Some thoughts from American Thinker's staff:

Ed Lasky:

As is well-known, Hillary Clinton delivered a pronounced thumping to Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary. This is in face of a steady drumbeat by the media regarding her all but "dead duck" status and repeated calls for her to give up the lost cause. The media has repeatedly all but drafted Barack Obama as the nominee before the Democratic National Convention. Historically, the media has always reported in past elections that an all but certain result leads to lower turnouts (which is why they, in principle if not in practice, say thy restrain themselves from jumping to conclusions in when Eastern states report their results in November-they do not want to induce a low-turnout). Well. what the media is not reporting-save for the National review-is that West Virginians came out in droves-the highest turnout ever for a Democratic primary  to vote for the "loser" Hillary Clinton.

What does this say? That Barack Obama not only is not as popular as his staged rallies may suggest, but that he is so unpopular that voters are eager to come out to register their dislike and disapproval. The West Virginia result is also reflected of the downward momentum that Barack Obama has experiences since the February primary month.

Added to the fact is that s substanital number of these voters said they would not consider voting for Obama if he were the nominee.

This might mean James Web has just risen upwards on Obama's VP list. He has written movingly of the people in the Appalachian belt.

Rich Baehr:

Only one third of  Hillary's voters said they would vote for Obama in the general election. She could win West Virginia against McCain, he will get blown out by McCain by 20-30 point in the state. This will feed the "poor whites are racist" charge, which will become the theme if Obama loses. . Evangelicals were blamed for Bush. Less educated whites  are the bogeyman this time.   

Why did the media anoint Obama the winner of the nominating contest after a 14% win in North Carolina, driven by 92% support from blacks (34% of electorate in the state), but ignore and demean Clinton's 41% win in West Virginia? Because when blacks vote decisively for a candidate, that delivers a mark of goodness, so long as whites (some of them) are also voting for that candidate (not a Jesse Jackson vote). . , it is fine.

The black vote is the litmus test for moral superiority. The media is  totally in the  tank for Obama- cheerleading to get the race over after NC. Thirty supers shifted to Obama this week in big numbers based on media stampede to end the race- effect and goal  was to undercut Hillary's expected big win in WV. 

Obama has won only two primaries since Wisconsin-Mississippi and NC, both dominated by black turnout. 


The results next week in Kentucky will almost certainly be very similar to those in West Virginia. Week after week, as it is proven Obama can't attract the Democrats white working class base, Obama looks more and more like a loser. Will it be enough to change the dynamics of the race once again and place Hillary in the role of rescuer?

With about three weeks to go we'll find out soon enough.