What's next for Hillary?

[cannon_fodder]

RM, Hillary does best among uneducated, poor, elderly white people.    

West Virginia is among the most uneducated, poorest, oldest and whitest states in the Union.  Of all the states, or even potential cities in the Union Hillary has been predicted to carry, this is it.  And at the end of the blowout Hillary will still be down in every category you count.  

If Kentucky voted tomorrow (instead of with Oregon) and she repeated the performance, she would still be down.

As it stands CI says Obama declares victory on the 20th.  having clinched the popular vote & delegate lead.  This will be the victory met with the most "buts" since it was Mission Accomplished in Iraq.

As for what happens in the GL, I don't know that I really care.  I will again pick the best of a pair of unsatisfactory prospects it seems.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Hillary should win big on Tuesday in West Virginia. Some polls have her ahead by forty points. That would make it the biggest blowout of any of the states.

Why won't poor people in small towns vote for Obama? Why do people without a college education vote for Hillary over him?

Will these same people vote for McCain over him in the fall?

Give me a break.
West Virginny? Hell, it's inbred.
Let's let by gots be bye gots....

[RecycleMichael]

Neither of you gave me answer.

Why?

Why does Obama do so poorly in that demographic and Hillary do so well?

Hillary and Obama are both Ivy League lawyers, both are Senators from big states, and both are multi-millionaires.

[cannon_fodder]

Preface - I am making generalizations in an attempt to respond.  Before you chastise these generalizations remember that I am trying to think of reasons why your generalization may prove valid.  So I'm generalizing reasons for generalizations o voters...

Some reasons I can think of:

1) The devil you know:  rural, poor, uneducated and elderly folk are generally not trusting of government.  They know a Clinton and saw the country do well under him, so they trust her because they like Bill.

2) Rural, poor, uneducated, and elderly - Alex that would be, what are the groups that would stereotypically be least likely to vote for a "colored" man.  

I'm not trying to make it about race, but certainly that is an accurate statement and does play a roll.  Pretending race has nothing to do with it is as obtuse as pretending it has everything to do with it.

3) The demographics represented would be unimpressed by a smooth oratory style.

4) The prospect of "change" is generally not embraced.

5) Her name is Hillary, his is Barrack.  As petty as that might sound, "Barrack Hussein Obama" is not a name that would resonate well in West Virginia.  On a blank slate, just the two names next to each other... she'd win.  (again, these are not THE reasons, you asked for ideas and I believe name plays a roll)

6) The rumor that he is Muslim persists.  Such rumors might would be hard to dispel among good Christian folk that are poor, rural, uneducated, and/or elderly.  As a friend of mine in Arkansas put it - "I know he said he is Christian, but I am not willing to take the chance that he is Muslim."  Yes, people think like that.

7) Hillary is not a big State Senator who was a corporate attorney for super-mega-corp - she is a Southern Bell from good ole' Arkansas who faithfully supported her husband in times of trouble.  Barrack Hussein Obama is from Indonesia and grew up in Hawaii before working for slumlords in Chicago.  Or, at least that is the portrait the Clinton camp would like to paint in West Virginia.

Clinton seems more willing to pander - harsher protectionist talk, more handouts and tax breaks.  Obama has walked the line on free-trade and blatantly turned down several handout proposals.  Poor, uneducated, rural elderly white folk may want more handouts and stop 'dem people who took 'er jobs.  

9) Patriotism and Religion.  Poor, rural and elderly people also largely constitute religious followers.  Obama's brand of religion now includes a strain of anti-Americanism.  That probably doesn't go over well.

10) She has spent more time, more money, and has more paid staff in West Virginia than Obama (mirroring your point from last week).
- - -

So there are ten reasons I can think of off the top of my head.  Together, they probably accurately reflect the trend we are seeing.  It's hard to think of any other viable alternatives other than typical immeasurable reasons (I just don't trust him, she's a woman, I vote for the shorter candidate... whatever).

Each may effect the general election in a different manner or not play much of a roll at all (ie. is racial prejudice/untrust of Obama stronger than party/platform loyalty?).

[RecycleMichael]

Thanks, fodder.

I especially like the number seven. I will call it the "Stand By Your Man" or "Tammy Wynette" reason.

Funny, most of your reasons work well in Oklahoma and Arkansas, both states she won. It also fits Kentucky where she is favored next week.

But Hillary won in California, New York, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, etc.

Do you think there are enough of these uneducated and poor folk demographic in Massachussetts to explain why she won by 15% there?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Neither of you gave me answer.

Why?

Why does Obama do so poorly in that demographic and Hillary do so well?

Hillary and Obama are both Ivy League lawyers, both are Senators from big states, and both are multi-millionaires.

Look at how people on here divide up on issues. Me and DoubleA may both be democrats, but most of the time we could strangle each other. We have different perspectives on issues.

Though both Hillary and Obama are Ivy League lawyers, etc. they come off as being different types of people. I dont want to tread into steriotypes but Hillary comes off as being more like those who support here, same with Obama. The differences may be small, the way someone talks, carries themselves, even key words, issues, matters of focus, etc. And yes, even the black white thing. They may be of the same class, but Obama comes off in ways that connect more with middle to upper middle class, yp types.

I connect more with Obama and how he speaks and sees the world, but if Hillary got the nomination I would connect more with her and her take on the issues over Mc Cain.

I still run across people who think Obama is a Muslim. I wouldnt care if he was, but a lot of "good ol boys" probably wouldnt go for it. Hillary can bring on that blunt, good ol boy swagger and attitude. I was shocked just this weekend to hear my sister say she didnt like Obama because he was a Muslim, was brought up in a Muslim household and she had heard that he had apparently held his hand over a Koran during some swearing in ceremony. I didnt think that was true, and again, to me it wouldnt matter, so its not something I had researched to find out if it were true or not. But if my sister had somehow caught that impression, I can only imagine that others have it as well and have a negative view of it.

Look at the people that Bush connected with more. He acts like some Texas, every day good ol boy, but comes from a wealthy family. Remember how they painted Gore as being an "intellectual" as if its a bad thing that someone studied hard and learned something. Its not what you know, its how you say it. Interesting to see how Hillary works it, she is full of facts and sharp as an arrow,,, but she still doesnt come off as being an "intellectual". A lot of its all in the language and how one carries oneself,, and some of the issues and how those issues are presented and the direction they are approached. How the person thinks and plays the game. Do they come off as playing the game the way you do, or as I do?

[TheArtist]

I agree with a lot of what cannon fodder said.  He just beat me to the punch and as usual is more methodical in his approach lol.

[FOTD]

I think the Obama people about 16 months ago laid out a strategy. It started with, "we ain't winning these states so let's move on to a caucus approach and try to change the red states over to blue states. Look how late their primaries are."

America is a great country with many interesting colonies of folks with different mores. This song may give you perspective on what Obama had to overcome in the Kentucky/WVa. And yes, many communities in this great nation exist that have employed some of the same customs.

The song sez it all.....

 Kentucky State Song lyrics
My Old Kentucky Home, Good-Night (1853)

Words & music by Stephen Collins Foster (1826-1864)
1.
The sun shines bright in the old Kentucky home,
'Tis summer, the darkies are gay,
The corn top's ripe and the meadows in the bloom,
While the birds make music all the day.
The young folks roll on the little cabin floor,
All merry, all happy and bright:
By'n by Hard Times comes a knocking at the door,
Then my old Kentucky Home, good night!

CHORUS
Weep no more, my lady,
Oh! weep no more to-day!
We will sing one song for the old Kentucky Home,
For the old Kentucky Home far away.

2.
They hunt no more for possum and the coon
On the meadow, the hill, and the shore,
They sing no more by the glimmer of the moon,
On the bench by the old cabin door.
The day goes by like a shadow o're the heart,
With sorrow where all was delight:
The time has come when the darkies have to part,
Then my old Kentucky Home, good-night!

(CHORUS)

3.
The head must bow and the back will have to bend,
Wherever the darkey may go:
A few more days, and the trouble all will end
In the field where the sugar-canes grow.
A few more days for to tote the weary load,
No matter, 'twill never be light,
A few more days till we totter on the road,
Then my old Kentucky Home, good-night!"

Stephen Foster was a classic American artist. The song provides the feeling of sorrow for the plight of slavery. Yet, the sense of cultural practices supports the 10 reasons CF states so well above.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown
I am ashamed of the women that have not supported Ms. Clinton.  But despite their lack of support, Ms. Clinton has earned a place in history.  No woman has gone this far and she has made me proud to say I am her supporter.

So you're advocating that voters should vote for a person based on gender alone?  I know a large segment of her supporters are supporting her for no other reason, which is scary.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.

She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.

After Richard Nixon is raised from the dead, I think his next job will be President of the US.  IOW, it ain't likely to happen.  Obama is in the lead and has more support.  The only way Slithery can win if she cheats on a Bushian scale, or if something really bad happens to Obama.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by bugo
In 100 years, history books could very well point to Hillary Clinton as the person who destroyed the Democratic Party.

That is the most outrageous thing I have read on this forum for months.

Slither her way to the nomination?

Please.

Absolutely.  She knows she can't win with the current rules, so she's trying to get them retroactively changed.  She also has been trying to get PLEDGED Obama delegates to vote for her instead.  She's a slimy as Karl Rove.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference.  But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.

This is why the Dems must not nominate Hillary.  If they do go against the will of the voters, this will completely alienate the younger generation, and they will feel so betrayed by the Dem Party that they either go elsewhere or quit showing any interest in politics whatsoever.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Neither of you gave me answer.

Why?

Why does Obama do so poorly in that demographic and Hillary do so well?

Hillary and Obama are both Ivy League lawyers, both are Senators from big states, and both are multi-millionaires.

One reason is racism.  A poll came out after the Penna primaries that said that around 20% of Clinton supporters voted for her becaue of race alone.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Thanks, fodder.

I especially like the number seven. I will call it the "Stand By Your Man" or "Tammy Wynette" reason.

Funny, most of your reasons work well in Oklahoma and Arkansas, both states she won. It also fits Kentucky where she is favored next week.

But Hillary won in California, New York, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, etc.

Do you think there are enough of these uneducated and poor folk demographic in Massachussetts to explain why she won by 15% there?

Obviously, she won her home state.  But I think the reason she did so well in California and Massachusetts was because she organized there from the outset.  You have probably read enough articles discussing how her strategy was to win the big states, and rest her laurels there.  Since those states were much earlier in the race, she had much higher name recognition and better organization, and Obama had a higher lead to overcome.  Plus, to some extent Edwards still factored into the race, especially in New Hampshire.  Obama focused on those states that, while smaller, were ones he could more likely win.  She won Massachusetts, but he won Connecticut, which has very similar demographics.  By the time we got to other states later in the process, he was able to win other similar demographics.  While she won New Hampshire b a few points, he won Vermont handily.

If the vote were held over today, I don't know that she would win Massachusetts, and I definitely think he would have a better shot at California.  Which is why the order of the voting makes such a difference in outcome, and it's important for the states to stick to the rules.

[cannon_fodder]

I do not think the demographics in Mass./California or the other states she won are the same or close enough to WV to warrant a comparison of those reasons.  I'm sure there are reasons in each state, but I don't really have time to figure it all out.  Same with Obama on his states (why does he do well in Montana/Wyoming?).  

Unless you think she can reverse the Super Delegate trend on the strength of the "but she won..." argument, it is an exercise in futility.  I just don't see the DNC ousting the popular vote + delegate vote leader just to uphold the establishment candidate.  "He got more votes, but can't win" just seems like an odd argument.