Page One header image 1

Is Kentucky Up for Grabs?

March 6th, 2008 · 25 Comments

Rep. John Yarmuth (KY-03) on presidentin’ in Kentucky:

“Kentucky is kind of that mix that is going to be hard to predict,” said Yarmuth, who so far is the only one of Kentucky’s eight superdelegates to pledge his support to Obama.

He said he expects Obama do well in Louisville and Northern Kentucky, as well as Lexington with its college campuses, while the southern stretch of Kentucky, which has more in common with Tennessee, will likely go for Clinton.

“It’s going to be the golden triangle against the rest of the state, I guess,” Yarmuth said.

“I think Kentucky is very much up for grabs,” Yarmuth said. “I think you can almost flip a coin at this point.”

Have Jerry Lundergan and Steve Henry (he and the disgraced beauty queen wife have been out campaigning for Hillary, scaring away literally hundreds of votes from the Clinton camp) locked up the Bluegrass for Hillary Clinton? Or will Obama-loving Louisville and Lexington win it all?

Thoughts?

Tags: Barack Obama · John Yarmuth

25 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Daniel // Mar 6, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    I’ll believe it when I see it. Clinton 08!

  • 2 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Mar 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Obama will get Kentucky easily. Like all other states, he’ll quickly come from way behind, and they’re already so close that Obama will easily exceed Hillary’s vote.

  • 3 jake // Mar 6, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Obama fever hasn’t spread beyond the golden triangle, I’m afraid. But I guess we’ll see.

    Sorta like the Kerry Kentucky movement in 2004 didn’t move outside of Louisville.

  • 4 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Mar 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Of course, I’m talking about the primary. The GE is a big question mark at this point.

  • 5 Daniel // Mar 6, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    What makes you think that Obamafever will come to KY? He’s lost the momentum!

  • 6 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Mar 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    Daniel, are you sure you’re not sucking up the latest mainstream media tale on Mrs. Inevitable?

    It turns out that Obama has actually won the majority of Texas’ delegates, and after the Mississippi and Wyoming contests next week, he’ll be out in front of Hillary further than ever before.

    On top of that, the movement of superdelegates toward Obama is not abating but still continuing.

    I think Obama has this won already. The math simply isn’t in Hillary’s favor.

  • 7 Anony Mouse // Mar 6, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Daniel, it’s Obamamania not Obamafever. Shows how much you’re paying attention.

  • 8 alan harbig // Mar 6, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    Gawd, are the Henrys still out there? Who would want them to campaign on his or her behalf? Think I’d take a pass on that one, dude.

  • 9 Steve Bittenbender // Mar 7, 2008 at 12:01 am

    If the Kentucky primary is in play, then Hillary will beat Barack 53-47. Obama’s support will come mostly from the Golden Triangle and perhaps the Hoptown area. However, I think Louisville’s blue collars and Catholics will tilt toward Hillary, giving her the ultimate edge.

    As far as Obama winning the majority of delegates in the Texas primacauclusterf–k, that would be a shame if it’s true. You shouldn’t win the majority of the delegates if you didn’t win the primary.

  • 10 robertson // Mar 8, 2008 at 12:30 am

    Hillary has won every major state so far that has voted except Illinois. She has won New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California, Michigan and Florida. These are states that the Democratic Nominee must win to win in November.
    Sure Obama has won Nebraska, Idaho, Alabama, South Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska and Utah. Does anyone really believe that these states will vote democratic in November? None have since 1964. That will not in 2008 either.
    The major problem I have with caucus voting is that it seriously disinfranchises many voters. There is not one soldier who is fighting in Iraq or Afganistan that has the opportunity to vote in a caucus. Not one! Many senior citizens or people with kids cannot go to a caucus and stand for 2 hours to vote. This means that the ones that have the time to go have more voice than others. That is wrong.
    Hillary Clinton will win Kentucky. She may lose Louisville, but she will win Kentucky. She is going to be the nominee of the party.
    Barack has not been able to knock her out and he missed his chance on March 4th. That date will come back to haunt him. HillaryClinton.com

  • 11 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Mar 8, 2008 at 1:32 am

    Argue all you like — Obama is the nominee, and there’s no way Hillary can catch up. The numbers don’t lie.

  • 12 Jeff Noble // Mar 8, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Mr. Magruder’s comment makes the same mistake that both the Obama campaign as well as the Clinton campaign have made. While the so-called numbers don’t lie, neither do they add up to 2,025.

    Mike Huckabee made a point of staying in the Republican race until McCain got the number necessary to be nominated, and upon McCain doing so, Huckabee dropped out as he promised he would. Neither Clinton nor Obama are going to reach the number necessary to be nominated, so there are no numbers to lie about or not. And unlike Huckabee, neither Clinton nor Obama promised the other they would get out should the other reach the magic threshold.

    Clinton’s campaign made the grave error of ignoring caucusses to their peril. They ended up filing Ms. Solis over the error. Obama carried caucusses throughout the land. It was as if the Clinton people missed that chapter of the play book, a playbook that frankly, they largely wrote.

    Obama, on the other hand, made the error of not campaigning the superdelegates, whose part in the process was/is just as important as the primaries and caucusses. Superdelegates have been a part of the process for most of Obama’s life. Like the caucus numbers which overrepresent a very few number of people, superdelegates overrepresent an even fewer number. Nonetheless, they are and have been a stated part of the process and the Obama team ignored them to their peril.

    It seems each candidate, each of whom I’ve supported at one point or another, has a fatal political flaw in not playing the entire game at hand. It takes 2,025 to win. That’s the number that doesn’t lie. Obama doesn’t have it and can’t get it. Neither can Clinton. This race is far from over.

  • 13 Jeff Noble // Mar 8, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    correction above: firing for filing

  • 14 Steve Bittenbender // Mar 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    My biggest fear is — regardless of the nominee — the Democratic Party will squander all it gained in 2006. It’s not just losing the White House. It’s House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader McConnell that frighten me more than President McCain. It will happen because we have two candidates with more ego than valor and a skewed view of leadership.

    The Democratic Party needs to revamp how it nominates a candidate. Caucuses need to be eliminated. Open primaries need to be eliminated. The candidate earning the most votes wins the most delegates. No weighted districts. Reduce the number of superdelegates. It should be that simple.

  • 15 Daniel // Mar 8, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    I agree, Steve, on the caucuses. They should be eliminated. Open primaries should be eliminated.

    Caucuses are anti-American. Our troops serving overseas cannot vote in them. That’s f***ed up if you ask me.

  • 16 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Mar 9, 2008 at 11:05 am

    Even if Florida and Michigan delegates are seated as-is, and given the superdelegates currently pledged to Obama, Obama only needs to win roughly 46% of the delegates in the remaining contests to sow up the nomination (with Hillary needing 54%). And that percentage will shrink after Mississippi on Tuesday.

    If the status quo is upheld, and MI and FL aren’t seated, he only needs 37% of the remaining up for grabs (with Hillary needing 63%).

    The math is in Obama’s favor, and Hillary should drop out.

    source

  • 17 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Mar 9, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Daniel, no matter what anyone thinks of the current nominating system, the rules were understood and agreed to by all candidates before this process started. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game — that would be unAmerican.

  • 18 Steve Bittenbender // Mar 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Actually, Steve M., rules have been changed in midstream during this election.

    Obama’s camp made sure Nevada caucuses were held at casino locations so unionized casino workers — who backed Obama — could participate. No other group earned such an advantage. It led to Obama winning the Nevada Caucus in Bush-like fasion (losing the popular vote, winning the most delegates).

    And if Obama wants Hillary to end her campaign, all he has to do is one thing: win Pennsylvania. He has the money and the volunteer base, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

    Then again, he had those same advantages in Ohio and he still managed to lose by 10 points. If he can’t put Clinton away, how can we be sure he can put McCain away?

  • 19 Mike Bailey // Mar 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    This argument makes no sense to me: “Because Hillary has won the big blue states during the primary she should be the nominee – because she can go back and win those states in the general.”

    Huh?

    The Dem nominee is going to win those states regardless. Claiming that winning a Dem primary in a blue state makes you more electable in a general election makes no sense to me. Now, winning Dem primaries in purple or red states DOES seem like a formula for gaining crossover voters.

    I happen to like both Obama and Clinton. I lean Obama, but my real fave was Edwards. So I don’t truly have a dog in the hunt. But it surprises me to hear flawed logic like robertson’s implied argument above.

  • 20 Daniel // Mar 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    And keep in mind that Nevada held their caucus on Shabbas, disenfranchising Jewish voters that are religious.

  • 21 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Steve B., casino workers are a major part of the electorate in Las Vegas. Not giving them convenient access to polls would have produced unfair results. And I could only guess that Obama had trouble in Ohio because Hillary started way ahead, and her campaign committed a dirty trick: suggesting that the Obama campaign wasn’t serious about renegotiating NAFTA — when that turned out to be a lie.

    And I’m really enjoying the lack of math skills in so many people. Obama doesn’t *have* to win Pennsylvania to become the nominee — he only has to maintain his lead in delegates — the superdelegates will either support the delegate leader at the convention, or the party is done for November, and it’s President McCain.

    Daniel, no candidate controlled what day Nevada held their caucuses. The rules were understood in advance.

  • 22 Steve Bittenbender // Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    Steve M.

    You simply cannot be serious with your first two sentences. How is giving a niche audience special — and unequal — access to the polls is perhaps the least democratic (note the lower-case ‘d’) stance I could imagine.

    That would be like saying Kentucky should place polls in Christian churches and extend voting hours to Wednesday evening so a major part of our electorate could participate and the results wouldn’t be “unfair.”

    And until Obama has 2,025 delegates, any claim he makes to the nomination is completely specious. All candidates knew going in that superdelegates would be able to support whoever they wanted. Obama’s attempts to coerce these delegates to forsake their duties is as disheartening as Clinton’s attempts to validate the Florida and Michigan results.

    As you can probably tell, I’m not an Obama guy. (I liked Richardson and Dodd). He doesn’t have the experience. His rhetoric seems shallow. Too many of his primary votes have come from the “ABC” (Anybody But Clinton) crowd, and the Independents and Republicans who have contributed to his lead are more likely to vote for McCain come November.

    I can support Obama wanting to build a new base for the party, but it’s hard to see a liberal Democrat win in the Bible Belt and the Heartland in 2008. Maybe I’m too cynical, but it’s hard for me to set aside 40 years of election data.

    Maybe the best option for Democrats this year isn’t Obama or Clinton. Maybe we need to draft a compromise candidate that everyone can support (and give Republicans little time to react).

  • 23 Steve Bittenbender // Mar 10, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Pardon me — In that second sentence in the first paragraph, remove “How is”

    Jake and Rick, can you guys give us the ability to edit our remarks?

  • 24 Jake // Mar 11, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Steve B: We can give you the ability to edit comments. But we’re too power-hungry to do something like that!

  • 25 Daniel // Mar 11, 2008 at 11:14 am

    We should have gone with Bayh/Ford 2008!