Reply With Quote
did obama win these states in 08?
Kentucky, Arkansas primaries: Is it racism?
So far, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Kentucky primaries have seen an unchallenged in bent President lose around 40% of the vote to nominees ranging from an incarcerated felon to "uncommitted."
In all four states, they are closed primaries meaning only registered Democrats may vote in them.
But, to the Washington Post, this is a sign of racism?
Got it.
did obama win these states in 08?
Irrelevant to the OP, tbh.
he won north carolina and west virginia i thought. Both of which had closed primaries where obama almost lost to an in bent.
it's relevant because he lost both of those states by 18 to 20 points so to make a big deal of this is silly.. and irrelevant.
Arkansa by 20 points
WV by 23 points...
Get back to me when 40% of CA or NY vote against him then maybethere is a point to start a thread.
An unchallenged in bent President losing 40% of the primary vote is no big deal?
Why didn't those 40% of Democrats just stay home and not participate?
because you moron he's not going to win those states..stop playing stupid
I don't know yoni... do you? Why should I care about a state that he is not going to win?
I think it's noteworthy when a identified population, Democrats in this case, eschew an in bent candidate by a significant percentage.
In the macro view, I agree. There is no impact since Obama likely wasn't going to carry those states anyway. But in the micro, it's interesting.
Definitely fascinating... a moot point? Maybe. Or maybe it indicates democrat support for Obama is even lower than expected. Too many of these types of cir stances added up could be a big deal come November, considering the "Anyone but Obama" drive the right has been making for some time now.
So, why did 40% of the registered Democrats bother to come out just so they could vote against him?
So what if he's not going to win those states?
Well, if he's lost 40% in states he's not going to even win -- how much is he losing in states he carried in 2008?
Eh, I'd prefer to see the total number of votes this time around compared to last time before drawing any conclusions. Not that its important enough to look up.
There might be a large difference since it's uncontested this time.
Let "The Hill" answer:
Rocky path for Obama in Colorado
It's the economy, Stupid!President Obama on Wednesday swept through Colorado, where he faces serious headwinds in his effort to retain an evenly split battleground state that went Republican in 2000 and 2004 but heavily supported the president’s 2008 campaign.
The conventional wisdom since then has been that the ever-rising Hispanic population in Colorado has made it more likely that Obama can keep its nine electoral votes in his column. But political observers say Colorado is very much in play given the state’s slight rise in unemployment last month and Obama’s low approval ratings among voters focused on the economy.
That's a fair point. If there is no other candidate, why bother voting in a primary?
Protesting the in bent seems like a pretty good reason, if one is so inclined.
People vote in primaries often emotionally. In the real election, they vote their pocketbooks.
dems are closet racists who feel shameful of themselves and try to make up for it by pandering to minorities and destroying the republic
As graduation looms, m>s has gone full re .
So you think everyone that voted for Obama in 08 was voting with their pocketbooks?
And who the says pocketbook?
I think what's important to note is there was no appreciable about of money, campaign ads, etc. If these people had money to spend, they possibly could have won.
Won what?
A primary no one else bothered to show up to?
If they had money, it would have been contested and the Obama campaign would have contested it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
