CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
May 18, 2008 – 10:44 p.m.
Clinton Headed for Sure but Hollow Victory in Kentucky
By Greg Giroux, CQ Staff
For Hillary Rodham Clinton , an anticipated victory in the Kentucky primary should resemble her victory the previous week in West Virginia — decisive but hollow.
Surveys of Kentucky Democratic voters ahead of Tuesday’s primary have pegged Clinton’s lead over front-running rival Barack Obama at more than 25 percentage points. Her lead owes to the state’s demography and geography: Kentucky is overwhelmingly white, and without the huge African-American voting bloc that has helped sustain Obama’s success through the Democratic primaries, and the state’s levels of personal income and formal education are below the national averages. While Obama has won some heavily white and rural states — including Iowa and Vermont — he has struggled against Clinton in an expanse of Appalachia that sweeps in western North Carolina, western Virginia, southeastern Ohio, most of Pennsylvania and all of West Virginia.
Fifty-one pledged delegates are at stake in the Kentucky primary, of which 34 are divided up among the state’s six congressional districts. Generally, the more Democratic-leaning the district, the more delegates it gets. There are eight delegates assigned to the Louisville-centered 3rd District and six delegates assigned to the 6th District, which includes the state capital of Frankfort. Each of the other four congressional districts has five delegates; a five-delegate district will split which will split 3-2 for the winner unless he or she wins 70 percent of the vote, in which case the delegate allocation would be 4-1.
CQ Politics projects that Clinton will win 22-12. Another 17 pledged delegates will be distributed based on the statewide primary returns, and they would split 11-6 for Clinton if she wins between 59 percent and 68 percent of the vote — a range that is in keeping with what recent polls indicate. But a net gain of 15 delegates for Clinton wouldn’t put make a dent in the big lead enjoyed by Obama, who is expected to win Tuesday’s other primary, in left-leaning Oregon, and tighten his grip on the Democratic nomination.
•1st District(West — Hopkinsville, Henderson, Paducah). The 1st District takes in all of Kentucky’s border with Illinois, Obama’s home state, though this surely is not Obama territory. In earlier primary elections, Clinton won some counties in southeastern Illinois and did well in southeastern Missouri, southwestern Indiana and northwestern Tennessee, which border a district that also isn’t all that far from Arkansas. She might be able to top 70 percent of the vote in this district. CQ Politics Projection: Clinton 4, Obama 1.
•2nd District(West central — Owensboro, Bowling Green). This area of Kentucky should be another Clinton bastion; it runs up against southern Indiana, an area where Clinton did well in her narrow victory in that state’s May 6 primary. Obama might be able to keep Clinton below 70 percent with a strong showing in some higher-income suburban counties that ring Louisville. CQ Politics Projection: Clinton 3, Obama 2.
•3rd District(Louisville Metro). This is Kentucky’s most geographically compact district and its most Democratic-leaning in presidential elections. About one in five residents is African-American, making the 3rd the most racially diverse district in a state in which nearly 90 percent of residents are white and just 7 percent are black. With blacks likely to comprise more than one-fourth of the Democratic electorate, Obama can win this district even if he loses decisively among white voters. It takes 56.3 percent of the vote to win five of eight delegates. Obama was endorsed a few months ago by the district’s congressman, first-term Democrat John A. Yarmuth. CQ Politics Projection: Tie, 4-4.
•4th District(North — Covington, Florence, Ashland). This district takes a lot of its vote from suburbs near Cincinnati, Ohio, where Obama should do better there than elsewhere in the district. Oldham County, just east of Louisville and the westernmost county in Kentucky’s 4th, has the highest median household income in the state ($68,000 in 2005), and Obama has been doing better among upper-income voters than among lower-income voters. Clinton should prevail easily in the poorer counties to the east. CQ Politics Projection: Clinton, 3-2.
•5th District(East and southeast — Somerset, Middlesborough). The much-used term “white working class” in this district, the poorest in Kentucky and one of the poorest in the nation. About 97 percent of residents are non-Hispanic white, and just 1 percent are black. In a handful of counties, the Democratic registration advantage is higher than 90 percent, though this district is very socially conservative and has been represented since 1981 by Republican Harold Rogers . In the two southwestern West Virginia counties that border Kentucky’s 5th — Mingo and Wayne — Clinton took 88 percent and 79 percent of the vote respectively. All of this points to a Clinton landslide in excess of 70 percent of the vote. CQ Politics Projection: Clinton 4, Obama 1.
•6th District(East central — Lexington, Frankfort). Obama probably won’t win this district, which includes the state capital of Frankfort and a major population center in Lexington, even though he has the backing of its congressman, Ben Chandler , a former state Attorney General who was first elected to the House in 2004. Of Kentucky’s six congressional districts, the 6th has the lowest share of residents age 65 and over (11 percent) and is tied with the Louisville-based 3rd with the highest share of over-25 residents who have at least a bachelor’s degree (25 percent). CQ Politics Projection: Clinton 4, Obama 2.
Comments
:Hollow victory" is pro-Obama biased media spin. The pro-Obama biased media have interfered in, undermined, and sabotaged the Democratic presidential nomination process. The pro-Obama biased media continue to sabotage Sen. Clinton's campaign with impunity. This media tyranny is our democracy's worse enemy.
That's it, call a stunning victory "hollow" - minimise it's importance- write off the winning candidate - be a better shill for Obama.
It is a hollow victory in that the gains she makes in Kentucky are offset by her losses in Oregon. Senator Clinton has waged a great campaign but the math is not on her side with this. I don't think there's pro-Obama bias outside of the fact that most pundits are wondering why Senator Clinton is staying in the race outside of trying to reduce her outlying campaign debt. I voted for Senator Clinton in her senate campaigns and in the primary in NY. However, even i see the writing on the wall and woudl rather see her drop out so we can focus on the general election rather than extending this through June.
I guess they are saying that because supers were poled that they have decided. When she erases the caucus popular vote advantage, i wonder how that will be written off by the media as a loss for her
Well, Jerry Brown won primaries in 1992, after Bill Clinton's nomination was assured. Those victories were seen as hollow. Why should a different standard be applied to Hillary Clinton? At least people weren't voting for Jerry Brown because they were terrified of the first black President--which is kind of funny, when you think about it, since Bill has been called that many times. The media hasn't favored Obama or Clinton--it's been favoring The Horse Race, trying to keep it alive as long as possible. Without the media propping her up, Hillary would have been forced to call it quits weeks ago, if not months. She's over 20 million in debt, and when all the votes are counted, she'll be behind in every possible metric, even if the non-contests in Michigan and Florida are counted. At which point, after arguing over and over that all the votes should count, she'll argue that the supers should disregard those votes, and give the nomination to her. The supers will say no, and that's the end of the Clintons' Presidential hopes. So yeah, I'd call Kentucky a pretty hollow victory.
This is not a news report, it is a commentary and an endosement. CQ Politics...........gone from my list of media sources.
Even at this stage, I actually remain relatively neutral between the two remaining candidates insofar as I view their merits as potential presidents. (I was an Edwards fan when this all started.) But it isn't spin to say that this victory will be hollow for Clinton-- she will win this primary but she lost the nomination race about a month ago. She's too far behind and there is no plausible scenario in which she catches up. (Scenarios, yes-- but no plausible ones.) You guys need to chill on the internecine struggle and focus yourselves on the actual object of this exercise, which is avoiding another Republican presidency in November. All else is trivial. Obama is the nominee, so now let's move together toward our actual objective.
Excuse me . . . :hollow victory"???? Dismissing Kentucky insults the millions that have voted for what they feel is the better candidate to lead the Party to victory based on experience and past work doing "the right thing" rather than the lock step AA block thought. Voting for ethic, sexual or racial context rather than accomplishments sells Democracy and integrity short. We all lose. The "hollow" is really the echo chamber of MSN ignoring fact, and is brought to us by the same media that sold us BUSH . . .
Honestly, are there not more important things to be bickering about right now? I understand feeling frustrated because your candidate is slowly withering away, but it is childish to try to turn this into a case of media bias and it is pathetic for Clinton supporters to pretend like the battle isn't over. There is not a scenario by which Clinton takes the nomination that would be anything other than a disaster for the party. And a disaster for the party, at this stage in the game, means a Mccain victory in November. Her upcoming Kentucky victory is hollow just like her last victory was hollow. Stop trying to act like your vote was stolen from you just because your candidate didn't win. As Democrats, you should be used to that losing feeling by now. Stop whining and get on board with Obama so we can reverse the disaster that has been the last seven and a half years.
If you are down 52 - 10 late in the 4th quarter of a football game and your running back scores a 90 yard rushing touchdown, as dramatic as that is, its still hollow. So she loses 52 - 17.
Stewie, That's a ridiculous comparison. In your analogy, she is more likely down by two touchdowns, where a hail mary and an onside kick could still happen. It's a long shot, but it's sure as hell worth taking, especially in an election this important. Given how many times Obama has put his foot in his mouth and said inflammatory things this past couple months, he's shooting himself in the foot. So Clinton needs to stay in this until the convention. Superdelegates are free to change their minds...and once the republicans starts the attacks, Obama will crumble like the empty suit he is.
Cad, The disaster awaiting the democratic party is an Obama candidacy. He will not win. He has not connected to several core consituencies of the democratic party and with his many blunders and arrogant attitude he will not move them to his camp. SO, unless superdelegates grow a pair and cast their support behind Hillary Clinton, we will see John McCain as president. Any electoral map analysis to date shows the rough task ahead for Obama who starts with a lead in 200-210 electoral votes, whereas Clinton starts out with a very comfortable 260-280 electoral votes. It's the map people...it's all about the map.
Ugh. I'm sick of the "media bias" comments. You all sound like Republicans! It was the media that was proclaiming early on in the race that Clinton was basically a "shoo-in" for the Democratic nomination. It was by her own folly that she lost early states to Edwards and Obama and didn't have the right campaign structure to overcome those obstacles (why? largely because she was supported by large donors and had no grassroots organization in many of the critical, early states). She could have also overcome this if she'd done better on Super Tuesday, but she didn't have the organization and was already running out of money. And there's the fact that lots of people don't like her and lots of democrats feel that she's too devisive. She's also not a very good speaker, but a good debater. Well, Obama is the foil to just about all of that. He won early and often, and then he won pretty big on Super Tuesday. How dare you all blame the media for putting some sort of pro-Obama "spin" on this! The story is not "Clinton expected to do well in Kentucky." Why? Because that's just as much spin as the true story "Clinton expected to do well in Kentucky; she's a valiant fighter, but unless she can do the next-to-impossible and convince literally hundreds of super delegates to change their mind and re-indorse her, and unless she can get FL and MI delegates seated, in violation of party rules, in greater percentages than they even voted, and notwithstanding the fact that neither candidate campaigned in either state, then she can't win." That quote is too long for a headline, so we get "Clinton Headed for Sure but Hollow Victory..." Get a life. Once you start complaining about "the liberal pro-Obama media" you might as well just vote Republican. (Wait, nevermind, don't do that!)
PDX - Obviously your biased for Hillary, or a Republican trying despreratly to derail the Democrats. For your senerio to play out, almost 90% of the Super Del's not declared would have to support Hillary. Seeing how Obama has been averaging 5 to 1 in the last month, what makes you think all these Supers are going to change there mind? It is a hollow victory, just like West Virginia. As for your wonderful anaylisis of the delegate map against McCain, something may pop out to you. Obama puts states like Virginia, NC, SC, NM, Colorado and Iowa into play. Hillary is the John Kerry map. In all fairness, i think both of them beat McCain in November.
PDXEric nailed it right on....it is not about anything but the elctoral map and with the way Obama has alienated the voters of very crucial states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Va., and others) I don't see a scenario where he can beat McCain in the general election. Democrats have to win two of these states: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio to guarantee a Dem int eh White House. Obama can't win any of them and therefore must try to make up those loses in red states where things look grim for him. Clinton on teh other hand wins all three of those states...easily in Ohio and Pennsylvania. What I have been proposing is that if Obama does win the nomination and all the Hillary supporters that don't want to vote for Obama....instead of voting for McCain we should try to organize a write-in campaign. Our votes would not be going to a republican, but would ultimately be heard as true support for Clinton as president!! WRITE-IN CLINTON on your November ballot.
PDX - First of all, yes, I can find maps that are far more Obama friendly than the ones you cite. More to the point, Obama has a chance to redraw the map. Sure, Obama's ability to pull in Iowa and Colorado is nice, but when was the last time that you saw North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Texas, Nevada, Nebraska, and North Dakota all in play? Those are usually easy red states, but each one of those have had polls in which Obama beats McCain. When was the last time that we had so many red states in play? Furthermore Obama has a far better shot of pulling in the midwest, which has been slowly drifting red for a while now. This is an opportunity to redraw the map and reengage what have traditionally been red states. So you are right, it is all about the map, and Obama brings a lot more to the table when it comes to taking that map and reshaping the nation.
Mike ~ You are being facetious, right? Polls in Ohio are a statistical tie between McCain and Obama in Ohio, and he is easily beating McCain in Pennsylvania. Look at the data before you make claims that he can't carry those three key states. Furthermore, your calculations apply only to the traditional red/blue split - so that may be true for the Clinton map, but not for the Obama map. For example, the latest polls have Obama well ahead of McCain in Virginia and Colorado. Add to that all of the other traditionally red states that are leaning Obama, and you see that we probably won't be looking at the same assemblage of states. Lets add to this one other factor: we all know that many people are trying to make it look like their preferred candidate is the stronger candidate. Some (but not all) of those people in both camps that say that they will not vote for the other democratic candidate actually will do so when the rubber hits the road. It is entirely possible that is not true with yourself, but we do know that whichever candidate secures the candidacy is going to get a boost in all of their poll numbers after that happens. The fact of the matter is, either candidate is a tougher opponent than McCain, and whichever one wins this will also win the white house.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: