The margin watch in the Democratic presidential race
Hillary Clinton's final margin in the West Virginia primary will be overwhelming, but it will fall short of the biggest routs she and Barack Obama have scored over each other in their ongoing battle.
To refresh our memory, we checked the Primary Tracker on the politics page at latimes.com. We also set aside caucuses, where attendance is limited, and focused solely on primaries.
For Clinton, the state where she racked up her most lopsided victory was where she served as first lady for so many years: Arkansas. On Super Tuesday -- remember, Feb. 5, the day that was going to determine the Democratic nominee? -- she carried it by 44 percentage points.
West Virginia, though, came through hugely for her -- it will surpass Oklahoma as the site of her second best showing. She won the Sooner State, another Super Tuesday contest, by 24 percentage points. (Also on that date, she carried her current home state, New York, by 17 percentage points.)
Obama's largest margin came in the Feb. 12 District of Columbia primary -- he won the predominantly African American city by 49 percentage points. Also on that day, he carried Virginia by 29 percentage points -- his fourth best showing (and an outcome that stands in stark contrast to West Virginia).
Obama's second most impressive triumph (in terms of margin) occurred on Super Tuesday when he won Georgia by 35 percentage points. And his home state of Illinois, also voting then, gave him his third best margin, 32 percentage points.
-- Don Frederick
Is this scenario possible, assuming agreement by both parties to the long term strategy of 16 years in the White House: Obama President, Clinton V.P. first 4 years, Clinton President, Obama V.P. 2nd four years, Obama President, Clinton V.P. 3rd four years, Clinton President, Obama V.P. last 4 years. An Obama President Clinton V.P. is the best chance to beat McCain, and maybe, if it is legal, the above would satisfy both candidates to stick it out for the long haul. Does anyone know the legalities?
Posted by: gilbert bonilla | May 13, 2008 at 08:29 PM
The signs is on! Is any Super delegate READING it? Obama wins the red states and caucuses. Clinton wins the Dem states and swing states. He LOSES in November. She WINS in November! It is time for the Super Delegates to accept the MATH that WINS the election. Obama has not carried blue collar and middle class white voters since the Wright contoversy. And it is not going to change. ALL Super delegates must come out for Hillary. It is time.
Posted by: Core Democrat | May 13, 2008 at 09:00 PM
Hillary is not the one that says one thing and does another (flag pin and pastor wright - two things Barack has completely flip-flopped on), rather Hillary says she's a fighter and she's going to win.... And that's exactly what she's going to do!!
Go Hillary!!
Posted by: Hillary is the Winner | May 13, 2008 at 09:01 PM
This election is far from over!
It's Denver Baby!
Posted by: Randy | May 13, 2008 at 09:07 PM
Thank you for cutting through some of the spin that has accompanied today's primary, in which the Clinton camp has repeatedly shouted that West Virginia is the "turning point in this election." As you point out, there have been several of these kinds of wins for both sides, but the fundamental truth cannot be ignored: Sen. Obama has run a superior campaign, he has been a more effective executive in this effort, and he has won the nomination.
Sen. Clinton has done a fine job appealing to West Virginia's poor, monotone voters (2 of 10 of whom have admitted they wouldn't vote for a black man, though I would bet the ratio is higher--a shameful fact in our nation today, but there you are). She deserves credit for her win. But changing the rules, insisting we count delegates she agreed not to count, arguing against the primary metric with which we gauge success in this process--delegates--in favor of a succession of "more important" reasons to give her the nod, just doesn't seem all that honorable. I think it's far past time that honor returned as a high value in the White House.
A candidate who sees nothing wrong with changing the rules in mid-contest to enhance her advantage makes me very nervous as a potential President. We've had quite enough of that already.
Posted by: dennis | May 13, 2008 at 09:52 PM
Go Hillary! Because along with being smart, tough, experienced & well prepared for the responsibilities of the oval office, she's worked to help the less privileged & middle class throughout her adult life and will continue doing so.
Based on Obama’s achievements and experience to date, there’s little reason to believe he could or would be the leader we need. His scarcity of valid presidency qualifications--prepared plans/programs, experience, any bona fide accomplishments--along with his history, basic philosophy per his autobiography, his "selective" memory, and close ties to people like William Ayers, Louis Faraquan, el-slsl, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko cause deep concern about his qualifications, who he would choose as his advisers, cabinet, and chiefs of staff, and where he would lead us.
Clinton promises changes, and we know hers will be for the better.
Posted by: Patrick Knif | May 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM
I am glad that Hiliary won in the state of West Virginia, it is just a shame that she did not win in Virginia, where I live. I voted for her during our election and I think this should continue until the end. I firmly believe she is the candidate that can win against McCain in the fall. I am afraid of what will happen if Mr. Obama runs and he loses. I believe Hiliary has the experience and intelligence to run this country and I will seriously have to not vote in the fall if she is not the democratic candidate or possibly vote for McCain. I will not vote for Obama. I am one of the Hiliary supporters that everyone is talking about. I hope the super delegates seriously think about what they are doing prior to the fall election. I hope the remaining contests are won by the best candidate, Hiliary. I will either not vote, go for the green candidate, Ralph Nadar as a protest vote or I will vote for McCain. Please do the right thing and put the best candidate in the position to win. This is Hiliary Clinton.
Posted by: Jean | May 14, 2008 at 01:42 AM
What are you people saying? Hillary is a liar and a cheater! Hillary should step down now and discontinue the destroying the democrat party.
Hillary, stop being pig headed, stubborn, and a rich girl. White Water? Plenty more "Clinton" scandals?
Posted by: Matt | May 14, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Want to know the most frustrating thing about this race? Ignorance! Hillary and her "It ain't over till its over" attitude is ruining the party and her image. She's known to be a fighter but she's more of a street brawler. Nuke Iran? That goes against the Internation Treaty. And do we really want oil prices to become $5 or more a gallon? Because that's whats going to happen if we Nuke Iran. Noth Korea and the other countries will use this as an excuse and increase their nuclear programs. Soon, terrorists will "somehow" gain access to some of these Nukes and Good bye Washington! But I digress. Obama is clearly the nominee as the math and superdelegates state. McCain will be a worst president than both Obama and Clinton. Want to know why? How about we stick in Iraq for the next 100 years? How about we let the housing market fall to an all time low? How about we let the stock markets crash and let the Great Depression become a realty to the 21st Century? My advice voters, vote Democratic no matter what. I implore you, please! The Iraq War is a blank check that Bush takes and writes huge amounts of money on. That blank check bankrupted the US. That blank check will be used by John McCain.
So please, vote for the Democratic Nominee.
Posted by: Zackh | May 16, 2008 at 08:23 PM
What a shame that there is discrimination in this election.
It seems to me that no one hears or sees anything.
I guess women's rights are still not strong enough.
I hope this is not a discrimatory remark.
Extra-marital sex is not taboo in my book and I'm sure it isn't in many other countries/cultures. Sex is a-political .Reporters eat it up and are deaf to real political danger. Of course sex or any other pleasure, or illegal monetary gain by government officials or anyone else for that matter are also big red flags.
Derrogatory comments about the middle class and religion, and being friendly with biggoted clergy for years are more easily explained away by the media then a little sexual fling. The mostly male government machine more than likely sees things the same way. The media loves sexual in-discretion. Sex and politics are not even related unless government money is used for sexual gratification.
Arrogance and degradation of U.S. citizens are a deadly sentence for all of us and the biggest red flag of all.
Theresa A
Posted by: cthstrings@juno.com | May 18, 2008 at 09:02 AM