West Virginia: a lose-lose result

Nobody really won in West Virginia. Hillary Clinton's decisive victory failed to take her any closer to the Democratic nomination, while Obama's loss raised the spectre of deserting Reagan Democrats come his all-but-certain candidacy in November.

Surveying the US press this morning, Clinton might have felt pretty deflated by its collective effort to find a hundred new ways to say the word "hollow." "Symbolic", "meaningless", "empty" - barely was a newspaper article or blog to be found that wasn't littered with unflattering adjectives.

Part of Clinton's difficulty - apart from a mathematical problem that only a pupil at Hogwarts could solve - was that a number of prominent figures in her campaign, notably Bill, had set the bar rather too high - about 15 per cent too high, in fact. It was never about winning in West Virginia - the demographics of which were always going to work in Clinton's favour - but about the size of the victory. And as numerous commentators have noted today, after the former president cited 80 per cent of a 600,000 turnout as the result required to alter the dynamics of the race, suddenly 67 per cent of 330,000 turnout looks a little weak. Her campaign is clearly starting to acknowledge the reality of her situation: not only are advisers "privately" assuring the press that an exit is approaching, but her victory speech in Charleston last night sounded much like a pitch for the VP spot on the ballot.

Clinton's win did in fact bolster her argument that Obama has problems pulling in the Reagan Democrats who dominate this region of America, but as it comes too late to change the dynamics of the race, it will serve only to make Democrats a little queasier about their all-but-certain choice of nominee. Critics excoriate her for playing dirty on issues of race - which the Republicans would no doubt have raised anyway, but perhaps with less credibility among conservative Democrats than when coming from one of the grande-dames of their own party.

Obama may be able to turn all this to his advantage, however. Putting his problems into stark focus this early in the election season gives him the time to tackle his problem areas - his schedule for today, filled with talks on the economy in Michigan factories, is a clear sign his campaign is about to go blue-collar crazy.

A selection of comment from the web:

Stumper, Newsweek:

" And the winner is... no one. Hillary Clinton may have received the most votes in today's West Virginia primary, taking 67 percent of the vote and netting 10 delegates. Barack Obama may have moved one step closer to clinching the Democratic nomination. But as the polls close, the odds of Clinton topping her party's ticket are still impossibly long, and the worries about Obama's potential weakness among white, working-class swing voters in November are more justified than ever. Thanks for nothing, West Virginia. You may want to consider changing your slogan from "Open for Business" to "Everybody Loses.""

Salon:

"Clinton dropped some of her recent, explicit arguments against Obama (in her victory speech), but the one she made implicitly -- that he's less electable than she is -- isn't likely to change the cold, hard truth of the numbers. Bill Clinton said last week that Hillary needed to win 80 percent of the vote with a turnout of 600,000 -- which would have surpassed even the wildest dreams of Democratic strategists here -- to "make the earth move" and change the dynamics of the race. Tuesday's win was an overwhelming one, yes, but not of the seismic-force variety. And considering that Obama has picked up more than two dozen superdelegates since last week's elections, including four on Tuesday alone, he's rapidly moving closer to claiming the nomination."

Maureen Dowd, New York Times:

"In grim times, a bitter Hillary clings to bitter voters who in grim times supposedly cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

"Mining that antipathy, the New York senator has been working hard to get the hard-working white voters of hardscrabble Appalachia so she can show that a black man can’t yet be elected president."

Presidential Candidates:

"Although the Clinton campaign and her supporters will try to make a big deal out of her large margin of victory in West Virginia, the fact is that the state is perfectly tailored to Clinton’s demographic strengths and her large victory is not a surprise at all. ... What is interesting is that while Obama has won 22 contests by a margin of at least 20%, West Virginia is only Clinton’s 3rd 20%+ win! If you are a Clinton supporter who somehow thinks this WV win actually means something, read that again please. Obama has had 22 large wins, while West Virginia only Clinton’s 3rd such large victory. The other 2 contests Clinton won by 20+% were Oklahoma and Clinton’s home state of Arkansas."

Powerline:

"The fact that voters in a given Democratic primary favor Clinton over Obama doesn't mean that many of them will favor McCain over Obama; nor should we assume that Clinton voters who say they'll vote for McCain will actually follow through.

"Nonetheless, the margin in the West Virginia primary suggests real resistance to Obama among Democrats in that state. Now, Obama doesn't need to win West Virginia in November any more than he needs to win Kentucky, where he's scheduled to be trounced next week. But there are many Democratic voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania who fit the West Virginia and/or Kentucky profile. Obama may need to do reasonably well with such voters to carry these two crucial states."

McClatchy:

"Her argument about West Virginia's importance undercuts the value of winning the primary there. By noting that every Democratic nominee since 1976 has won the primary, she inadvertently links herself not only to candidates such as Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton who won the state in spring AND fall — but also to Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry, who went on to lose it in general elections. Second, Obama could carry many of the Democratic votes in November that went to Clinton in the spring."

Comments

[jim johnson]

A lot of White Blue Collar folks will be mighty agrivated if the "Elite Snooty Liberal's and their 'Fellow Travelers' in the Media" try to brand every one who doesn't want to vote for Obama as a bigot. The Democrarts have to be at least a little nervous about Obama's inability to attract Blue Collar Whites. They may talk the "Oh we will all come togeather in the Fall", don't bet on it.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Yes, and apparently the KKK was very active in this extremely red-neck state pushing Obama hatred.

[jeff k]

The telling point in all these numbers is not how many people voted for Obama in the primaries but how many did not. And why. If Obama or the superdelegates think Hilary really is a waste of time, how come nearly half the democrats on the street don't?