West Virginia Primary Results Open Thread

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton wins BIG in West Virginia. She’s leading so far in early returns. And already, the media chatter’s changing, even if just a little. I guess Hillary Clinton can’t be counted out just yet. πŸ™‚

OK, so tonight may be another big night in this 2008 election season. Tonight, we find out how West Virginia voted. And tonight, we’ll see how much longer the primary contest goes.

So will Barack Obama still be planning to declare “victory” early next week? Or will Hillary Clinton reemerge as a serious contender for November? Check out the returns on CNN, and let’s see what happens.

And of course, stay here at TheLiberalOC.com to talk about the continuing developments in the Presidential Primary. Now let’s get talking! πŸ™‚

  42 comments for “West Virginia Primary Results Open Thread

  1. May 13, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Andrew, it’s not news that Clinton won WV, it was thought to happen all along. Not a shocker and not an upset. Hopefully this will help her raise more money.

  2. Northcountystorm
    May 13, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Thanks for posting the news on this bellweather state Andrew. Like North Carolina for Obama, West Virginia was expected to go into the Clinton column. This will no doubt flummox the talking heads hell bent on declaring the race over and all but demanding that she end her campaign.

  3. anon
    May 13, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    Can we wait until the DELEGATES (a whopping 28) are aportioned before declaring this a BIG win? Geesh.

  4. May 13, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    What a great night. I love how the Obama folks crowed about how he trounced Hillary in North Carolina and it was a 14 point victory. Hillary is close to a 40 point win tonight and they come back with West Virginia was expected to go to Clinton. It wasn’t expected to go to her by this much.

    This is a message being sent. Hopefully the super delegates are smart enough to understand it.

  5. anon
    May 13, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    To put it mildly, West Virginia ain’t no North Carolina in terms of popular vote or delegates at stake.

  6. May 13, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    Obama beat this win in ten other States Sean. Nice try.

    Idaho 4 Electoral Votes
    Obama 79%
    Clinton 17%
    Obama +62%

    Hawaii 4 Electoral Votes
    Obama 76%
    Clinton 24%
    Obama +52%

    Alaska 3 Electoral Votes
    Obama 75%
    Clinton 25%
    Obama +50%

    Washington 11 Electoral Votes
    Obama 68%
    Clinton 31%
    Obama +37%

    Georgia 15 Electoral Votes (Competitive with Bob Barr)
    Obama 67%
    Clinton 31%
    Obama +36%

    Colorado 9 Electoral Votes
    Obama 67%
    Clinton 32%
    Obama +35%

    Minnesota 10 Electoral Votes
    Obama 66%
    Clinton 32%
    Obama +34%

  7. May 13, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Actually anon currently Hillary is ahead by 41% in WV. That cuts it back to 3 states. However those three states aren’t actually swing states that can make or break the chances of someone winning the White House.

    Obama has no chance of winning the White House if he loses West Virginia in November. Hillary could win even if she loses those states mentioned above.

  8. May 13, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Sorry I meant Heather.

    And anon North Carolina ain’t in play in November, West Virginia is if Hillary is the nominee.

  9. HB citizen
    May 13, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    That just doesn’t make any sense.

  10. May 13, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    “Obama beat this win in ten other States Sean.”

    I only count 7 states listed above of which 6 were caucuses and only 1 (Georgia) was an actual primary.

    Hillary does much better when open primaries are held. Obama does much better turning out folks for the caucuses. The election in November isn’t a caucus and that might be a problem for Obama.

  11. Dan Chmielewski
    May 13, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Heather – and of those 10 Obama wins, he will likely take only three states in the general. Hawaii, Minnesota, and Washington. The states Hillary has won, with the exception of Texas, she is likely to win in the general.

  12. The Lovable Curmudgeon
    May 13, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Dan-
    Your logic confounds me. November is a different animal entirely. McCain is the presumptive opponent.
    Let’s take CA – Hillary won big. And I’m guessing Obama will beat McCain in a November matchup. So Hillary is not the only one capable of taking a state in the general just because she won the primary. Same goes for Barack.
    Once again, I ask… what’s your point?

  13. Claudio Gallegos
    May 13, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    You Hillary cheerleaders are absolutely hilarious. I remember reading last night that she was expected to win by 40 points in West Virginia. No shocker. She is still behind in the popular vote by about 90,000 votes IF YOU COUNT MICHIGAN. But Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan therefore it is unfair to county that state.

    Dan,hate to break it to you, but Colorado is also in play. And we want to go on the scoreboard of BLUE STATES(Any state that voted for Gore or Kerry in 2000 or 2004), guess what, Obama has won more BLUE states(12) and Clinton has only won 9. And the final Blue State to go is Oregon,which will goto Obama. SO there you have it folks, and guess what, he has also won big in red states.

    Hillary has lost, her last chance was last Tuesday and she failed. I have no problem with her staying in it until June 4th, for the sake of including the 5 remaining contests. Since we all got to decide, lets let them vote. But it is too little too late folks for a final stunt at the buzzer. That is of course you all support subverting the will of the people to steal the nomination from Obama. So are you all wiling to give the middle finger to the American people who turned out in record numbers?

  14. May 13, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    “But Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan therefore it is unfair to county that state.”

    Obama knew that he wasn’t going to win Michigan so it did not take any courage to remove his name from the ballot. By doing so he can pontificate about how it isn’t fair to give Hillary what she won in Michigan. By removing his name it was a win win for him.

    “So are you all wiling to give the middle finger to the American people who turned out in record numbers?”

    Are you willing to give the middle finger to the voters of Florida and Michigan?

  15. Northcountystorm
    May 13, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Claudio–Most of those states Obama won before his trifecta of Rev.Wright, Bittergate and William Weatherman Ayers. He went two months without a victory before North Carolina, a state that is unlikely to be in play in November and whose Democratic primary is hardly representative of the general election battleground states population. He’s walking wounded right now with a significant part of the population. He’s the one who predicted victory in Indiana and said it would be the tiebreaker(between Pennsylvania and North Carolina). I’m not saying he can’t win in November, but the bloom is off the rose and his coalition of high income whites, liberals who wear it on their sleeve, African Americans, a fawning press(minus Fox),a few unions and independents will get you closer to Dukakis than Kerry in electoral votes.

    I agree its unfair to count Michigan with the same weight as other states.On the other hand, Obama’s campaign stopped a revote dead in its tracks in Lansing so he doesn’t exactly have clean hands. I think a fair measure would be to give him the uncommitted vote which was substantial in Michigan but less than Clinton. I don’t want to give my middle finger to any Democrat but could you point me to the rule that says the unpledged delegates must follow the lead of the pledged delegates? And if you find it, since the delegates–including unpledged delegates–are part of state delegations–maybe you can see if this rule requires the unpledged delegates to follow the will of their state, or in the case of members of Congress, their congresional district. And if you find that, perhaps you can ask why Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Governor Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Bill Richardson of New Mexico and now Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia all are giving their middle fingers to the people of their states.

  16. Dan Chmielewski
    May 13, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    Claudio. Do me a favor and start counting electoral college votes in the states won by Hillary and those won by Obama. Winner tsake all in the general. Colorado in play? 50-50 at best

  17. The Lovable Curmudgeon
    May 13, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    States set their own rules for distribution of electors.
    Every state is NOT winner take all.

  18. May 13, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Seriously guys, are we agreed that we need to get rid of these super-delegates after this election – at least the non-elected DNC ones? It’s just a relic of the 70’s when the party establishment didn’t want the angry public foisting another McGovern on them. But it’s totally undemocratic.

  19. May 14, 2008 at 5:04 am

    Vern. Have you talked to any DNC members? Do you have any idea what’s going on with them?

    I would argue for getting rid of the elected unpledged delgates — people who are members of Congress, etc. I think many of them vote in their own personal self interest because they’ve been promised a position in a coming administration or some other quid pro quo. But the DNC members are another matter entirely.

    These people care about one thing and one thing only: the Democratic Party. These are folks who have dedicated their lives to the Party and will vote however they feel benefits the Party.

    Many of the pledged delegates are dead-enders who will support their candidate regardless of what’s best for the Party. We’ve seen this repeatedly in the posts and comments on this blog. The Congressmembers will support whomever has promised them the Lithuanian ambassadorship.

    But the regular DNC members want the strongest candidate — the person they think can beat the Republican nominee. Clearly there’s no definitive answer to that question — I know DNC members who think that candidate is Clinton, and I know DNC members who think that candidate is Obama.

    But I’d rather have those folks choosing the nominee than ANYONE else.

  20. May 14, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Vern-

    Sure, I’m OK with that… So long as we also abolish all remaining caucuses and have all the states run primaries. It’s simply unfair for older people, disabled people, the working poor, and military soldiers who can’t attend one caucus at one set time to naturally be discriminated against. If there’s one real reform I’d like to see the DNC take on after this election season (in addition to remembering not to sentence any voters in any states to “the death penalty” for political machinations out of their control), it would be to ensure all the states have primaries and everyone who wants to vote can vote. After all, isn’t that the democratic way?

    Dan & Sean-

    Thanks again for your help with “the math”. I find it funny that some of the Obama folks here forget that neither candidate has yet the 2209 delegates needed to declare “victory”, and that superdelegates have every right to consider the final popular vote and the “electability” argument when making their decision. So until all the remaining states vote and everyone in the party settles on a nominee, this thing ain’t over ’til it’s over. πŸ™‚

  21. May 14, 2008 at 10:43 am

    Polling shows that if the Primary in California were now, Clinton would have lost. I wonder how much more of an impact we would have had if we hadn’t moved our primary up to February.

  22. Eric
    May 14, 2008 at 11:18 am

    “neither candidate has yet the 2209 delegates needed”

    Who invited Terry McAuliff to our board? The necessary delegates is 2024. MI/FL do not count, therefore you cannot count them.

    The Ayers thing is nothing. The Wright thing won’t matter.

  23. May 14, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Eric-

    Believe it or not, there are 50 states in the US. Not 48, not 57… 50. And unless Howard Dean wants to giftwrap the 44 electoral votes of Florida & Michigan and bestow them upon John McCain, I don’t think it’s a good idea to disenfranchise the Democrats of these important swing states. Not only is it unjust to punish the Democratic voters for the misdeeds of the GOP, but it’s simply stupid to just let McCain win these two important states.

  24. Eric
    May 14, 2008 at 11:58 am

    I am not making a judgment about the fairness. I am just saying that they do not count right now. Therefore, unless you want to change the rules at the end of the game you cannot say that there are 2209 delegates needed to get the nomination.

  25. May 14, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Eric-

    Actually, that’s up to the DNC Rules Committee to decide on the 31st. And since even the DNC rules forbid cutting more than half the number of delegates from states that move their primaries too far ahead… And since the DNC leaders that imposed the “death penalty” on MI & FL actually “broke the rules” (while doing nothing when IA & NH moved their electipns too early) here, I’m confident that the DNC will ultimately do the right thing and count all the votes.

  26. May 14, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    The irony, the only one who has whipped these states into a frenzy is Clinton. SHe knew the rules and yet now she screams that they will be disenfranchised, that’s the issue here really.

    She said Michigan didn’t count, QUOTED AS SAYING SUCH, she admitted it. But now that she needs those States, it’s convenient that they are now, “Disenfranchised”.

    I’m so tired of this, the moving of the goal posts at every turn.

    NHPR’s Laura Knoy: “So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I’m off the ballot?”

    Hillary Clinton: “Well, you know, It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything”

    http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

  27. The Lovable Curmudgeon
    May 14, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    I love that you folks are talking about 57 like it was an error.
    There are Dem primaries with delegates at stake in DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the US Virgin Islands (I think) and for Democrats Abroad.
    Obama’s 57 state remark shows that he is aware of this.

  28. May 14, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Heather-

    No matter how much you pull out old quotes from 2007, it doesn’t change the seriousness of the situation. Sure, I think all the candidates made a mistake by not including Michigan & Florida. Even Obama backers on the big blogs initially thought that this was a mistake. But hey, I’m glad that my candidate has stood up to fight for all the votes to be counted. Again, Michigan & Florida can’t be excluded in November. And no, November won’t be a caucus.

    LC-

    Wow, that’s “creative”. There still aren’t 57 states. And yes, Michigan & Florida are states… Not Guam, not “Democrats Abroad”, not Daily Kos.

  29. just...asking?
    May 14, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    The Super Delegates were a brainchild of Ted Kennedy. He and his backers felt burned when Jimmy Carter beat him out in 76. Party leaders wanted to avoid having a political “outsider” from upsetting party leadership plans. They don’t seem to have worked because they either jump in and declare too early and make most the primaries meaningless or so late because they want to pick the frontrunner.

    Fear of loosing an appointment or pissing off the next president keep too many from making a decision. This can be corrected by making super’s declare on the day of their states election. If voters must choose and cannot change why should super’s be allowed to whore out their votes?

    Finally, the party needs to get rid of the caucus process. Another historical method of limiting input and candidates. Still used in states who like to push “favorite son” candidates. Like dinosours their time has passed.

  30. May 14, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Andrew,

    Those quotes are significant because they show how Clinton wants to go back on her initial decision.

  31. Dan Chmielewski
    May 14, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Heather —
    I’m sure if you polled America today, they’d prefer Al Gore over Bush. I am glad the primary was moved way up. Our votes mattered this time

  32. May 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Dan,

    Americans preferred Gore to Bush then. Remember he won the popular vote.

    It was the Supreme Court that disenfranchised Florida voters and selected Bush the winner. Now the Obama camp and his supporters want to do the same thing.

    If that happens I don’t ever want to hear them cry about Florida and the Bush selection ever again.

  33. anon
    May 14, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    By the time the superdelegates get done streaming into the Obama camp, Florida and Michigan will be entirely, completely, utterly irrelevent. Even if Ms. Clinton got all the delegates from those states, it won’t be enough to put her over the top.

    Now, how on God’s green earth is she going to work it out so that all the delegates in Florida and Michigan go to her? Basically what Clinton is saying is “I know I’m behind in popular votes, I know I’m behind in pledged delegates, I know I’m behind in superdelegates, but can’t we just ENGINEER something with Florida and Michigan that would steal the election for me”?

    Ain’t gonna happen.

  34. May 14, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    NARAL… now that’s got to hurt.

  35. Northcountystorm
    May 14, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    anon—You must not be able to read. If you can go back and look at the comments and you will see you’re either blind or nuts. Clinton is no trying to steal the election. The only campaign who has attempted to disenfranchise voters is the Obama campaign, all in the naked desire for victory. Heather, as usual, can’t seem to understand that it’s not relevant what Clinton or Obama may have said because we as Democrats have an obligation to let every vote count and not to disenfanchise voters in those states. Florida was a level playing field result and the Democrats in the legislature tried unsuccesfully to move the primary within the DNC window. its a GOP controlled legislature and its a GOP governor. And instead of enforcing the rules as the DNC said they would, with a 50% penalty, they played the capital punishment card.
    And Obama’s campaign supports this montrosity. As for Michigan, the Levin Machine are to blame for the initial decision but when Howard Dean invited Michigan to do a revote within the DNC guidelines, your precious Obama campaign killed the effort. Now Obama goes into Michigan and says “We’ll seat you.” If this is without penalty, you Obama people’s arguments about the rules just got shoved. But its really about Obama fighting tooth and nail against the 2.3 million voters in those two states having their votes count. Thats the audacity of arrogance.

    Uh, LC, first off I didn’t hold the 57 blooper against Obama. Long day and that. But if you’re seriously contending that he intentionally said 57 states, now I gotta ask , a) Does he know the difference between states and terroitories and a group of wandering Americans around the globe and 2) if you count your group, it comes to 56. Where is #57, the People’s Republic of San Francisco?

  36. anon
    May 14, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    NCS,

    And Michigan recently suggested a 69/59 split of delegates in Clinton’s favor and HER campaign nixed that offer. That tells me she has other plans for engineering the apportionment of those delegates.

  37. May 14, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    I didn’t hear the remark about 57 states (I do think the flag pin is amusing,though). I don’t know what Obama may have meant by it. Maybe he was tired, maybe he’d just seen a bottle of Heinz catsup.

    But if he was referring to 57 entities that send delegates to the Denver convention, I believe he was probably referring to the 50 states, Guam (9 delegates), Puerto Rico (23), American Samoa (9), US Virgin Islands (9), the Northern Marianas (9), the Democrats Abroad (22), and Washington, DC. (I don’t know how many delegates DC gets.)

    NCS must have been in school during the New Math. By my calculation, that’s precisely 57.

  38. The Lovable Curmudgeon
    May 14, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    My bad – I forgot the Northern Marianas in my earlier comment.
    There are 57 Democratic contests.

  39. May 14, 2008 at 9:42 pm

    LC, don’t let NCS off so easily. Some curmudgeons are lovable, and some are just curmudgeonly.

  40. Northcountystorm
    May 15, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    anon–unlike some commenters around here I don’t take my cues from presidential campaigns or national web sites. I don’t really care what Clinton’s take on Michigan is because even though I support her she is going to want everything. I understand Michigan is different than Florida. I will say that what ever plans she may be engineering for the apportionment of the delegates, to date Obama has relegated them to the twilight zone.

    LC & Gila— I was using LC’s list which didn’t come up to 57. With the NM it does. So I go back to the other curmudgeonly question which Gatekeeper Gila didn’t deal with–does he know the difference between states and territories and Dems Abroad? Or did that happen in that New Politics class that I missed?

  41. May 17, 2008 at 8:52 am

    does he know the difference between states and territories and Dems Abroad?

    NCS, are you arguing now just for the sake of arguing? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

    I know Obama, like all human beings, has faults and shortcomings. I also know you will support the eventual nominee, and it seems more and more likely that nominee will be Obama. With all the venom you’re still spewing against him, how are you going to turn that around after August?

  42. Northcountystorm
    May 17, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    GG— If you’ll go back to the beginning of the thread you’ll see I didn’t hold this against Obama at all. Hardly arguing. I only followed up when LC gave his interpretation. And this was frankly an LOL post as were my comments. Hardly venom.

    How remarkable that you acknowledge Obama has faults and shortcomings. That’s a first for an Obama supporter that I’m aware of. There’s a little venom lite for you.

    As for venom, you must not know what venom is my dear. You’ll see it in the general if Obama is the nominee. In a year without this war or the economy in the tank Obama would be chopped liver, an electoral vote count close to Dukakis.

    And I’ll note, I have never lit in to Obama or his supporters except in repsonse to some broadside by some of your bloggers or commentators afflicted with Obamaphillia. So before you start on me, try casting the mote out of the eye of people like Eric and Heather in your own campaign. If the roles were reversed and Hillary was on top, we’d be seeing a plethora of posts and comments from Obama people threatening to bolt if Obama didn’t get the nomination, threatening that blacks and youg people were going to sit home or bolt to Ralph “Credit me for Bush II” Nader, or disrupt the Convention. I’ve done none of that.
    And I’ve seen none of that by the regular Clintonistas who come to this site. The only Obama person who seems to get it is Vern. Of all people, Vern, who previously blasted a couple of Clinton delegates. Vern, from Orange Juice, aka Flamethrower Central, is the voice of reason.

    But maybe you’re right. Maybe I won’t be able to turn it around after August. Keep it up and you may prove yourself right once again.

Comments are closed.