Clinton is no longer winning a single county in WV.

[Barack_America]

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/wv/Dem

This, a state that overwhelmingly supported her primary bid in 2008.

Simply mind-boggling.

[onehandle]

1. +3 delegates for the also ran.

Another low population state makes no difference at all.

[morningfog]

3. More than 3 likely when finally allocated.

But you have been consistently wrong in your predictions, so easy to dismiss.

[Renew Deal]

7. Green Papers currently says 5

But that's not a final number and could go either way. 5 is probably a high mark.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WV-D#0510

[NWCorona]

4. Why are you discounting voters?

Let team Bernie say something like that.

They do matter and make a difference.

[Barack_America]

5. You keep saying this number.

CNN has it as +5 and climbing.

Not so much of a haul for Bernie, but a complete rejection of Clinton for sure.

[brentspeak]

24. Effete latte liberal looks down nose at rural Americans. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Bernie's campaign looked down nose at the southern states Hillary won

See how that works?

[Barack_America]

55. Big difference between "discounting" and questioning why ALL states...

...should not have a voice in selecting the nominee.

But you know that.

[morningfog]

2. Hilly peeps whine and compare Obama losses in '08 but

there is no comparison. Obama did not lose so many entire states, or by the margins or as many in a row as Hillary.

She has a serious problem that her team needs to figure out if we are stuck with her.

[PufPuf23]

50. If one looks at USA maps of the Democratic primaries comparing 2008 to 2016,

the tendency is for Hillary Clinton to win the states won by POTUS Obama in 2008 and to lose to or have close contests with Sanders in states won by Clinton in 2008.

Weird.

Too bad that Bernie Sanders did not have finances or momentum to compete in the early southern tier of states where he did poorly.

One wonders what would happen if those voted again between now and the convention. Sanders may likely lose a re-vote but certainly not by the margin that resulted in the Clinton lead in the popular vote.

I do not trust the popular vote in several large states won by Clinton, case in point is New York.

[INdemo]

78. Hillary supporters just dont understand. The corporatae networks can run

polling data till dooms day that shows Hillary is the winner over Trump without question and then on election day Trump begins to put together his transition team because Hillary is the most hated (so called Democrat) ever to run in a Democratic Primary.
If voters would have wanted Hillary she would have been elected in 2008 and Hillary supporters just cant seem to understand that.
Trump wins if Hillary is the nominee..

[Jitter65]

6. too bad it doesn't count. nt

[EndElectoral]

8. How is she losing by 15 points, but has 6 of the 7 superdelegates?

[SheilaT]

12. Because superdelegates get to choose

who they want to support. They are not bound by election results.

Which is why they are so inherently undemocratic.

[panader0]

13. The supers were paid? If the supers followed the popular vote,

it would be more democratic and Bernie would be much closer. Fuck the supers!

[onenote]

73. if the supers followed the popular vote, Bernie would be in same boat

he is now -

He would have to win the remaining primaries by roughly 30 points (65-35)

[CentralMass]

29. It is a corrupt process.

[Hoyt]

9. It's also a state who forgave an admitted former Klan member. Although he was decent in later years,

shows you where voters' hearts are. These primaries are complicated.

[Merryland]

10. "These primaries are complicated"

when Hillary loses, eh?

[SMC22307]

30. ...and? (n/t)

[brentspeak]

33. And HRC appeals to corporate trolls who post RW talking points

and corporate propaganda on Democratic websites behind a Woody Guthrie avatar.

[AzDar]

35. ...

[Hoyt]

36. No she appeals to diverse voters, and ones who want to get things done.

Yelling at the sky, and promising undeliverables, is not appealing to me.

[libdem4life]

77. How does panhandling to the Republicans for cash appeal to you?

Got to admit, she's right at home...back in the old saddle, as they say out West.

The rest is poppycock. Health care, education, social safety net ... undeliverable my arse. It's time we join the industrialized nations and compete at something besides war and the MIC.

[NewImproved Deal]

83. The Clinton Apologists are a Hateful bunch.

With them, gratuitous White-Bashing is not only acceptable, it's fashionable...

[panader0]

11. HRC got her lead in the South....

[Hoyt]

15. Whites went for Sanders.

[LaydeeBug]

60. and? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Isn't that a republican talking point

against one of the elders of the Senate, one Lion of the Senate? Oh yes it is.

Compare with HRC by the way

And here is the full speech

SENATOR ROBERT BYRD - To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

. . . This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.

. . . Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

. . . This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. . .

[Hoyt]

23. No Nadin, it's my talking point. Sanders appeals to white folks more than Clinton.

I don't think that is particularly admirable in our diverse country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I think you are wrong to attack a man who had the gumption to speak to an empty senate

on an issue as serious as war. And notice he did not see this as an opportunity either,. Mind you I watched that speech as IT HAPPENED, with my husband deployed on the front lines waiting for orders. So you might use a REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT, usually used by freepers, that does not mean I will not call you on it.

[Hoyt]

31. I'm counting votes and looking at ultimate arbiters -- the voters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. And I am looking at the obvious racism from HRC supporters

by the way, did you know that Hawaii is a white state? Yup, neither did Hawaiians... of course #berniemademewhite is still a hoot to read.

[Hoyt]

38. Check out the demographics for both candidates voters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Check your racism

ok.

When you guys scream RACISM... well what can I say?

As I said, Hawaii is a very white state. I learned that from HRC supporters. It is you who feels you need to do this shit.

[pat_k]

66. And on impeachment of Bush

http://www.democrats.com/node/8720

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. He was a lone voice on that too

[progressoid]

20. Sooo...guilt by association? Sanders voters are Klansmen?

[Hoyt]

25. I'm pointing out obvious lack of diversity in Sanders' supporters.

[Blue_In_AK]

42. Diversity meaning only African-Americans?

We went through this before with regard to Alaska and Hawaii, where the Native and Asian voters weren't considered "diverse."

[polly7]

51. Ain't that the truth. nt.

[haikugal]

76. Amazing isn't it? Yet we're the racists fucks....I've never seen such racism since the 60's as I've

Seen here and across the country from HillBill et al. I reject them totally!

[progressoid]

49. Bull. If that's what you wanted to say, why bring up the Klan?

At the Sanders rally I attended (in a very white town), the biggest cheer came when he spoke of Black lives matter. The next biggest cheer came in support of Muslims (Trump had just made his "keep them all out" statement). And these weren't just college students. It was mostly middle and lower class people, moms and dads, grandparents as well as new voters.

[progressoid]

63. Apparently.

Sad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. That is exactly the implication

[AgingAmerican]

39. So you attack the state?

Ad Hominem? Cognitive dissonance rely's on fallacies to buoy ones internal mechanisms.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. West Virginia says to me ...

The same voters that preferred the white woman over the Black man (in 2008), prefer the white man over the white female (in 2016).

And, when you factor in trump ... they prefer the white "uber-AMERICAN" male over the "Jewish Communist" man and the white woman.

[Tarc]

14. A 94% white population will pick the white woman over the black man

and the white man over the white woman. Not entirely unexpected.

[Barack_America]

16. Wow. What an ugly post.

You do realize you are broad-brushing fellow Democrats as only able to vote based on sexism and racism, no?

[Hoyt]

19. Well, there's some real ugliness in the dislike for Obama here in recent years.

Despite huge obstacles, he's just not good enough for some folks. And they make it clear.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. If you posted that, they would hide it in a nanosecond

[polly7]

22. The Brock slime campaign trotted this out on day one.

They just resurrect it every time Clinton loses.

[SMC22307]

26. Except for when lily-white states voted for Obama over Hillary in 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Why post something so easily refuted? What other *knowledge* would you care to drop on us?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Well you don't have to go back to 2008

this year I learned, thanks to DU and David Brock, that Hawaii is really a white state... which was a surprise to Hawaiians mind you.



I am sure a few were amazed, but #berniemademewhite is still a hoot to read.

[Barack_America]

40. You forgot Alaska! Lily-white!*

*after factoring out minorities who don't "count".

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Of course, first people never, ever count

silly you!



That is the point I stopped caring really for the racism coming from many HRC supporters. Then again, some here did that to me... to my shock and surprise. I was born in OH. not Mexico City. and apparently I am not jewish either. Or latina. It was a revelation I tell you.

[Barack_America]

52. Maybe, in addition to their "Woman Cards"...

...the Clinton campaign could consider offering "White Cards" to the Asians, First Nations and other minority groups who have opted out of her "diverse coalition" and, thus, no longer count as minorities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Hey, as long as she can magically errase the systemic racism

Oh wait, what they are engaging in IS SYSTEMIC RACISM

[haikugal]

79. .

[SMC22307]

84. Facts be damned...

as long as the paychecks are rolling in!

[Uncle Joe]

48. I'm curious as to why the percentage totals for Bernie and Hillary votes only come to 87+%?

Who else is getting votes in the Democratic Primary?

Thanks for the thread, Barack_America.

[pat_k]

61. Mainly Paul T. Farrell, Jr. Here's the "other" list:

PAUL T. FARRELL, JR.
MARTIN J. O'MALLEY
KEITH JUDD
ROQUE ROCKY DE LA

https://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/results/results.aspx?year=2016&eid=22&county=Statewide&type=Unofficial

[Ino]

69. "Other"...

aka "Throw U. Voteaway" ... has 12.6%... a whopping 27,669 votes.

[Joob]

53. It's even more funny because CNN decided to keep bringing up 2008 today!

lol

[pat_k]

59. and this is embarrassing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511939201

[Barack_America]

65. If I were a WV superdelegate, I would take notice.

[pat_k]

58. Paul T. Farrell, Jr. beat her by 100 votes in Mingo county.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511939201

[Barack_America]

64. Wow. Yeah, she only had 22% of the vote there, or so. 3rd place. Crazy.

[hollowdweller]

62. The coal comments, the gun thing and sucking up to Wall Street really hurt her here.

[jillan]

68. 3 counties not reporting yet - the rest is all Bernie!

[Jitter65]

70. Neither did Obama. nt

[Barack_America]

72. Who was he running against?

[onenote]

71. and in 2008 Obama didn't win a single county in West VA in the primary or GE

But he ended up becoming President, which suggests that West Virginia isn't exactly the bell weather state you seem to hope it is.

[Barack_America]

74. Hey, y'all are coordinated.

Fresh talking points in the inbox?

[onenote]

75. Nope. Just a bunch of smart people aware of political history and facts

Funny how that seems to bother you.

[AgerolanAmerican]

81. even so, you must admit

that going from winning every county in the state to losing every county in the state is about as thorough a rejection of a candidate as there can be!

[onenote]

82. well its pretty strong evidence that racism and sexism are strong in W.VA

Obama couldn't get 26 percent against a white woman.

Now that white woman can only get 30 plus percent against a white man.

Heck, in 2008, John Edwards, who had suspended his campaign THREE and a HALF months earlier, still got over 7 percent of the vote -- voters who would rather vote for a white male non-candidate that a black man or white woman.

I think we can see what West VA voters reject.

[Vote2016]

80. Not surprising - she's the ultimate elitist running in a populist state.