With a record turnout expected in today’s primary, West Virginia Democrats will make clear who they believe is the strongest candidate to take on Sen. McCain in the Fall.
Clinton Logic: One state can override the entire country in who gets to be the nominee for President. One wonders where this wild ride will take us.
The Mountain State is used to picking winners. Every nominee has carried the state’s primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916.
What I find funny here is they try and position this state as crucial, a watershed moment. What is even more funny is using logical fallacies to push their point. Does anyone recall the phrase? Correlation does not equal causation. Just because every nominee has won West Virginia since 1976 does not mean they are the nominee because they won west Virginia.
An obvious explanation would be that West Virginia typically goes so late in the nomination process that they tend to go with who has momentum. This race has been largely momentum free.
In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today’s outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices.
He has also benefited from the support of the most high-profile endorsers in West Virginia—Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State.
I personally wonder what grim poll numbers they are referring to? Since when do polling numbers with a split Democratic base and this far out from the general election carry any real weight as far as who can win?
What is even more annoying about this bit is her insistence on using the win-win argument on several states. If I lose it is because Obama has spent more money, had more staff, had more endorsements from key party members in the state. If I win it is in spite of Obama spending more money, having more staff, and having more endorsements from key party members in the state. Either way, I'm stronger and better.
While I know this is usual campaign spin, this line has been used numerous times. Is anyone actually paying attention to this argument anymore?
Despite being the so-called "presumptive nominee" and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls.
Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states.
I take it Clinton as been ignoring all the recent polling. This must be cherry picking at best.
The Clinton spin is becoming half-hearted, repetitive, and unoriginal. I think they aren't trying anymore. This memo is just rehashed talking points from OH, TX, PA, and other states. It takes negatives (unable to fundraise, lacking party support) and attempts to make it positives, as though most of the electorate are fools.
Clinton will win West Virginia and Kentucky. The Obama train, however, is full speed to the White House, and her feeble attempts are like insects on the engine of the train. It isn't going to make a lick of difference.
What I suspect is she will use her wins to increase fundraising and then I expect her to drop out once she reduces her debt by a large chunk. There is a good chance she'll be gone before June 3rd, I believe.
Superdelegates will take notice of the tired rhetoric and the same spin didn't work in OH, TX, or PA. It won't work here. I think the "Clinton will turn the tide" spin in regards to WV will fall largely on deaf ears and will only work to further secure Obama's nomination.
Still, we are in for a wild ride. I hope everyone holds onto their sanity while the media spins the Clinton blowout as somehow possibly gamechanging.