The West Virginia Precedent
This Grady column was entertaining, since she had to do quite a few backflips and contortions to make the comparison between the 1960 West Virginia primary and today’s anything but a horrible omen for Obama. As the story usually goes, his West Virginia win suggested that anti-Catholic sentiment would not drag Kennedy down and aided him on his way to the nomination, so the obvious point of comparing the two would be to say that the candidate who is likened to JFK on a regular basis is in serious trouble because of deep resistance to his candidacy in this part of the country and the Humphrey-like figure (that would be Clinton) is on the verge of a significant victory. Just by drawing the comparison people are giving today’s primary significance it may not even deserve, since the winner in 1960 did go on to become President (never mind about how he won the general election). For that matter, when Clinton says that “it is a fact” that no Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia in the general, she happens to be telling the truth for a change, and it seems certain that West Virginia will go for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Instead, because the outcome is not in doubt and the repudiation of Obama is unmistakable, we get an argument that Clinton can learn from Humphrey how to “bow out gracefully.” But why would she “bow out gracefully” if, as polls suggest, she is going to win perhaps as much as 75% of the vote and net more than a dozen delegates? Another problem with the comparison is that, as Grady relates, Kennedy campaigned extensively in the state and fought to win; today was Obama’s second visit to the state during this election cycle. The reason Obama did not make an effort is that his deficit of 30 or 40 points is much greater than Kennedy’s was, and probably could not have made much of a dent in it had he expended the effort and money.
Filed under: politics
“For that matter, when Clinton says that “it is a fact” that no Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia in the general, she happens to be telling the truth for a change, and it seems certain that West Virginia will go for McCain if Obama is the nominee. ”
First time for everything. Obama seems to have an Appalachia/Ohio River Valley problem. Not even a pickup in VA could offset the loss of PA.
” But why would she “bow out gracefully” if, as polls suggest, she is going to win perhaps as much as 75% of the vote and net more than a dozen delegates? ”
To answer the question: because the Clinton camp sees the upcoming general election in the same terms that you do: Obama is going to lose a great many ususally reliable Democratic voters en route to marching off the cliff; this in a a year Dems should sweep the board. She’ll be in until 6-3-08, after big wins in KY, WV, and Puerto Rico reinforce the trend that Obama cannot win blue-collar whites/Hispanics.
I haven’t decided if the coalition Obama is putting together (supercharged turnout amongst upscale liberals, blacks, young voters) is going to be enough to counter this trend, but it’s an interesting dynamic and the electoral map could look vastly different than in 2004.
“But why would she “bow out gracefully” if, as polls suggest, she is going to win perhaps as much as 75% of the vote and net more than a dozen delegates?”
Maybe because winning a dozen delegates doesn’t make a dent in Obama’s lead, which is now about 168 delegates? I mean, the math is math.
THe big difference between the West Virginia primary in 1960 and 2008 is that the system for choosing the nominee is completely different. Now it’s almost entirely voter-driven. Even superdelegates are highly unlikely to do anything but affirm the primary and caucus election results. In 1960, party leaders decided these things. THe purpose of primaries was simply to demonstrate popular appeal. Kennedy passed that test in primary after primary. The significance of West Virginia at the time was that it simply confirmed what the other primaries and behind the scenes thinking had already shown - the Kennedy was a viable candidate.
In 2008, WV doesn’t occupy anything like that kind of significance. Almost all the states have already voted. Obama has gained an insurmountable lead already. WV’s 18 delegates don’t count for much in that race. The isue of whether Obama can win in november without WV isn’t much in doubt. He can. The issue of whether Hillary can lose in November with WV isn’t in doubt either. She can. Is WV the crucial question upon which this primary and general election rests? No, it isn’t. Hence, it’s relative insignificance this time around, as is usally the case. WV has never been a significant primary in any year except 1960. It will continue to be insignificant in the future as well. I certainly don’t see how it changes anything we don’t already know. Some parts of the country aren’t ready for a black man like Obama. That’s a given. Many are. WV is a sign of the past, not the future.