| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Why West Virginia's Results Are Worth Watching |
| 2008-05-12 |
| Jim Geraghty, National Review Despite a great deal of discussion insisting the Democratic primary is settled, I'll be liveblogging tomorrow night, as the results from West Virginia come in. The polls close at 7:30 p.m. eastern, and the networks really ought to be able to declare Hillary the winner at about 7:29:59. But the margin will be interesting. As it's being widely remarked this week, no Democratic president has won the White House since 1916, without winning West Virginia. If Obama gets thrashed in West Virginia, how great will his chances be in this state in November? I think even his staunchest supporters would acknowledge he has an uphill climb here. I realize it's a great state for Hillary and a tough state for Obama, but shouldn't Obama be getting at least a little bump out of overperforming last week? If he can come within two points in Indiana, why would closing the gap in West Virginia by a few points seem so difficult? In West Virginia, Suffolk puts Hillary up by 36 percent. ARG has Clinton by 43 percent. Rasmussen has Clinton by 29 percent, his best showing. TSG has Clinton by 40 percent. (At the beginning of April, ARG showed Clinton only up by 15 percent.) Yes, Obama chose not to campaign in West Virginia this week. But doesn't effectively skipping/conceding the primary make the general election campaign tougher? Can he sell a message of, "I didn't act like I needed your vote in the primary, but I want it for the general?" And as some have noted, Bill Clinton has subtly turned up the dial on the "resentment" vibe as he travels around West Virginia: "Hillary is in this race because of people like you and places like this and no matter what they say," Clinton said. "And no matter how much fun they make of your support of her and the fact that working people all over America have stuck with her, she thinks you're as smart as they are. She thinks you've got as much right to have your say as anybody else. And, you know, they make a lot of fun of me because I like to campaign in places like this, they say I have been exiled to rural America, as if that was a problem. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be here than listening to that stuff I have to hear on television, I'd rather be with you. There is a simple reason: You need a president a lot more than those people telling you not to vote for her." Have the Clintons begun poisoning the well for 2008, in hopes for 2012? |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #2 Does Opophis just not want to campaign anywhere he doesn't have a machine? And he wants to say that places he doesn't have a machine don't count? |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-12 20:39 |
| #1 Have the Clintons begun poisoning the well for 2008, in hopes for 2012? The Clinton motto should be: "Poisoning the political well since 1992--and before." |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-05-12 17:12 |