Exit polls spell out Barack Obama's Kentucky problem
Barack Obama, assuming that two consecutive primary thrashings don't cause the pause among Democratic superdelegates Hillary Clinton is hoping for, will get within shouting distance of Kentucky later this year as the party's presidential nominee. The key swing states of Ohio and Missouri border it. So do Virginia and Indiana, which Obama might be able to put in play.
But actually setting foot inside Kentucky would seem a fairly pointless gesture by Obama, unless he's got Clinton in tow as his vice presidential pick. Not only did she follow up her rout of Obama in last Tuesday's primary in nearby West Virginia with an overwhelming win in the Bluegrass State, but exit poll data showed her voters feel none too kindly toward him.
Those figures found that only a third of Clinton supporters would vote for Obama in November, while about 40% would cast their ballot for Republican John McCain and the rest -- roughly a quarter -- would stay home.
Some of those Clinton Democrats who now say they would reject Obama no doubt would reconsider once the heat of their battle cooled. Still, a vast majority of the Clintonites would have to change their minds to give Obama a chance in Kentucky (which President Bush carried with 60% of the vote four years ago) and that seems unlikely to happen.
The exit polls found Obama's backers to be much more forgiving -- seven in 10 said they would be willing to vote for Clinton in November, with the rest roughly split between those who would line up with McCain or simply ignore the presidential race.
-- Don Frederick



when blacks were voting 90% for obama no one said it was racially motivated and talked about a re divide within the party, but when whites started doing the same tthing avoiding obama there is now this big issue. why can blacks vote for blakcs and no one questions their sincerity or right to vote that way but turn this around and thee is a big problem.
Posted by: jojo star | May 20, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Its true that both Obama and Hillary will probably have trouble with some backward Democrats. Esp. those who vote Democratic mainly for its traditional support of unions or its support for some entitlement programs and unemployment compensation. These people might go for McCain because they're afraid of anyone new or different, and also because of subjective reasons such as personality or "attitude" rather than past actions and statements. I think the educated, the ones who put the errors made regarding Iraq at the top of their priority will be more tolerant of either candidate.
Unfortunately I think both Democrats will have problems in the general election against a white male. Even a white male who's been associated with the worst policy mistake in 75 years, namely going into Iraq. I hate to say it but there's just too many uninformed, complacent persons in the U.S. and that's not even considering the Republican religious right!
Posted by: Ed Miller | May 20, 2008 at 06:48 PM
Puh - leeeeze. Give the man some credit for how he's run his campaign. Obama is but two dance steps away from landing the Dem nomination. It's political calculus at this point not to divert your focus and resources in a state you cannot win in the general election for a symbolic purpose. Hillary can have KY and WV all she wants. Congrats, Hillary. Nice one. Whew!
OBAMA '08
Posted by: Robbie | May 20, 2008 at 06:48 PM
Mrs. Clinton is an unstabilizing force in the democratic party.
Posted by: alma ludivina | May 20, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Those 40 percent of Clinton voters who say they'd vote for McCain are exactly the kind of numbskulls that consistently vote against their own interests in national elections. Chances are that even if HIllary were to be nominated and run against McCain, these people would vote for McCain. So, it's no real loss. I'd worry if Hillary was winning by getting the largest share of progressive, young voters. She's not. Assuming enough young and minority voters actually go out and vote in November, Obama should carry the day. But with this country, you just never know.
Posted by: Rob | May 20, 2008 at 06:52 PM
I rather vote for Nadar than Obama, I can't stand the man, and would hate to think what kind of backwards racism he would institute if he were in office. Why is it that everyone says racist this, and racist that...and yet I am a white female, who couldn't walk to the corner store in the city because I was a cracker b****, during a storm I was pregnant with my son, and I had things thrown at me for being white.....yet when I call the cops, and they said that maybe I should move. If it had been a African American, Asian. Hispanic, or any other ethnicity that, that had happened to all heck would have been raised! After hearing his pastor I would never vote for that man as he supports the kind of racism that keeps the divide open.
Posted by: Angela | May 20, 2008 at 06:55 PM
After what's happened to Senator Kennedy I have concerns that our older statesmen like him and Mccain may not provide us with a predictable leadership. I believe America must have a president who is young and stable. The last thing we need is a president who is either too old to work or dies on us mid-term.
Posted by: Jake | May 20, 2008 at 06:55 PM
What do you expect when we let the press in America dictate who the"winner is" ala Time Mag covmer story.
Many of us are not impressed with Obama or his rhetoric.
Posted by: steve | May 20, 2008 at 06:56 PM
If you think that it's a "problem" for Obama to not have the support of a bunch of poorly educated, gun-toten, openly racist turkey-hunters, I submit that maybe they're in the wrong party anyway. If the Democratic Party has got to worry about this reactionary little sliver of Americana, they're vision of the future will have to end with the lowest common denominator being the the Democratic Party's standard-bearer. If the alleged "blue collar voters" can't quite figure out that it is Obama more than it will ever be Hillary Clinton that will improve their economic lot, they've got a bigger problem than their simply being a bunch of pandered to racists...
Posted by: Paul Kopper | May 20, 2008 at 06:56 PM
To those the voters of Kentucky who'd rather stay home than vote: may you all go to hell.
Posted by: KentuckyIsRacist | May 20, 2008 at 06:56 PM
This is not Obama's "Problem." The problem lies with those who shut down at the idea of a non-white and/or non-male leader and instead opt for people like Bush and McCain, in which case, you deserve all the crap we've been handed the past 8 years.
The hard-working white, brown, black and everyone who work on the Obama campaign have been doing an extraordinary job. I'm very happy to know we just may have a smart intelligent, trustworthy AND tough administration again. McCain will not cut it at all.
Posted by: Julie in Burbank | May 20, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Neither WV nor KY figure into the Obama campaign's general election strategy. He was basically right to skip them. He could have campaigned his heart out and still lost by 20. The media spin would have been even worse.
Abstracting how he will do in the general based on these two states is like figuring how Hillary would do in the general based on her performance in D.C. or South Carolina. In all cases, the primary was comprised of voting demographics tailor-made for the opponent.
Obama will focus on winnable swing states in the fall.
Posted by: mypitts2 | May 20, 2008 at 06:57 PM
I'm tired of you sexist people calling me a racist.
Posted by: km | May 20, 2008 at 06:57 PM
I'm sorry, but I think I missed something during this primary. I missed the Clintons for all the people that use to sit in the white house. I missed the "let's come together as a nation that was suppose to be in the white house and the reasoning behind that stance.
What I see is a very vindictive, small minded ex-president and ex- first lady that has stooped to the level of the KKK in trying to win the nomination. I am personally sickened and I would sit out the presidental campaign before I would support any Clinton candidate,
So much for the "Can't we all get along." Clintons of the past.
Posted by: Sad Facts | May 20, 2008 at 06:59 PM
Obama's Kentucky problem is Kentucky. Obama's West Virginia problem is West Virginia. The Democratic Party's problem is Hillary Clinton, her husband, and their willingness to play the race card, the gender card and the elitist card to the potential and likely ruination of the party. Too bad they were too arrogant to play the winning card when they had it in their hands. Let West Virginia and Kentucky be West Virginia and Kentucky, and let us forge ahead until they catch up, if ever.
Posted by: SV | May 20, 2008 at 07:01 PM
Clinton is winning the counties George Bush won. Obama is winning the Democratic counties.
This indicates Clinton is Bush 2, and those voters are going to go with McCain anyway.
Or the Limbaugh factor is much bigger than anyone is saying, and those voters are going to go with McCain anyway.
We don't need racists in the democratic party. Good riddance. OBama will win with or without those voters.
Posted by: Obie | May 20, 2008 at 07:02 PM
Thank you Kentucky! You pushed Obama over the majority mark! He NOW has the insurmountable number of delegates he needs to take this thing across the finish line!
O'bama '08!
Posted by: Hope | May 20, 2008 at 07:03 PM
As a voter in Louisville, KY who marked his ballot for Obama, I find the exit polls troubling and an indication of why so many people find the state to be backward and redneck.
There were a lot of people in Louisville supporting Obama. Sad that so many in the rest of the state think their future will be brighter with Clinton or (shudder) McCain.
Posted by: Crutnacker | May 20, 2008 at 07:04 PM
Question. Why is a white voter in Kentucky or West Virginia or Pennsylvania or Ohio who backs Clinton and would vote for McCain if Clinton does not win the nomination a racist but a black voter who supports Obama (at about a 95% rate) and would stay home if Clinton "stole" the nomination not? Bottom line: Whites have and will continue to vote for Obama but blacks will not vote for Clinton ... and the story is "white voters will not vote for a black candidate"? Seems the press can only view this campaign through a politically correct prism.
Posted by: Alan A | May 20, 2008 at 07:05 PM
Maybe it's not that the Kentucky voters are racist. Maybe it's just that Obama's politics are so far out there that the Clinton supporters feel like he doesn't represent them. Maybe they feel that Obama only represents far left elitist.
Posted by: Robert | May 20, 2008 at 07:05 PM
I love to comment about redneck hicks. Guess this hillbilly just made his decision. I can't support someone who's following still uses Redneck hick because they voted for a white person. Give up the race card ok.
Guess if I am a redneck hick that makes you a nigger by your terms right.
whoops cant use that term it might offend someone. But redneck and hick is fine. Thats why you all will never amount to anything. Cause you have to play the race card all the time.
Posted by: Red Neck Hick | May 20, 2008 at 07:06 PM
It is no secret that many people in Kentucky are racists. What is insightful is how Hillary and her campaign pretend that racism is not what is helping her to win in states like Kentucky. Racists in the Democratic Party has kept Hillary hopeful. Funny to think her husband was called the first 'black president.' How silly that title seems today.
Posted by: Patrick | May 20, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Versaille, you must be high. Vomiting that mentally challenged crap that everyone who dislikes clinton does so because she's a woman.
If Clinton so fully embodies womanhood that a vote against her is a vote against womanhood, then women truly do deserve to be discriminated against because that would mean women are day dreaming(under sniper fire in Bosnia) liars(I was named after Sir Edmund HIllary) who can't be trusted(pushed forward the Bush agenda early on, including the Iraq war and the patriot act) to do the will of the people(I'm all about women, screw men!).
Get over yourselves. You might be angry, you might be feminists, but you and your candidate hardly speak for all women everywhere. Indeed, the suggestion that women are so stupid so as to only vote for a proven liar because she has a Uterus shows not only utmost contempt for women everywhere, but that you're locked into that ossified discredited 60s feminism. Join us in the new century. Thanks.
Posted by: Benjamin | May 20, 2008 at 07:08 PM
Is this what our nation is going to be like when Obama becomes president?
I think it's ironic that he is supposed to unify this country and yet all it seems he has done is bring up once calmed issues of race and socio-economic status.
If you wish to insult a group of people that has already been insulted and highly neglected by your candidate, then you should learn proper grammar and spelling; it only makes you look ignorant.
Posted by: Kayla | May 20, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Back in the day when Hillary commanded Obama to denounce AND reject Louis Farrakhan, I thought it was because of Farrakhan's racism. It appears now that racism is okay for Hillary, just so long as it's not anti-white. I'm still waiting to hear Hillary denounce and reject the racist comments spewed by her supporters in Kentucky and W.Virginia. Waiting... waiting... waiting...
Posted by: John from NC | May 20, 2008 at 07:10 PM