Dr.Zom:
When I pointed out that many Dems were unhappy that Obama wasn't liberal enough they both looked like I had kicked them in the stomach. It had never even occurred on them.

Either way, he loses votes.

The folks who are unhappy because he's too "right wing" (AKA "centrist" to the rest of the country) are the ones you mentioned - the ten percent or so who wear Che t-shirts without irony. They may be nuts, but they also tend to vote for the Democrat. Those people don't even show up on the Democratic side in polling - they're some of the "independents" that get stuck in the middle on the charts.

Likewise, there are people out there who think Romney is sorta left-wing. The difference is, of course, that most of those folks will still hold their noses and vote for Romney because he's nowhere near as far "left" politically to them as Obama is "right wing" to the leftist crazies.

AngryTeacher: Nadie_AZ:
Didn't The Dude occupy some administration buildings while smoking weed?


The dude? I summon the dude!
[i3.ytimg.com image 480x360]

EagleClaw! You are awesome for that reference.

I'm confused. CNN, a Liberal Media (TM) stronghold was claiming two states are Republican, when they are really not. And a site which is in trust of dispelling the propaganda of the Liberal Media (TM) is correcting this myth, even though it makes their side look weaker?

/Subby's headline didn't help

PlasticMoby: I'm in the Little Rock area and I had no idea the primary was today. If i had I would've voted the same way I did in 2008.

Also,I haven't heard or seen a single notice mentioning the primary date. So, I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one.



P.S- The center of the state is as progressive and forward thinking as any other major metro area with a great deal of diversity in every category .It's the area surrounding it that's full of backward hillbillies/rednecks.(We just call those parts East Texas,East Oklahoma,South Missouri,Northwest Tennessee,West Mississippi and North Louisiana because we're ashamed of them.They think we're snooty assholes and i'm okay with that.)

Yeah, he's 100% assured of being the Democrats nominee. All of the efforts are going into the general election since the primaries are virtually meaningless this time for the Democrats. These are people who are taking time out from yelling at clouds to go cast their protest votes for Dilbert Dumbfark.

Ace Rimmer: Yeah, he's 100% assured of being the Democrats nominee. All of the efforts are going into the general election since the primaries are virtually meaningless this time for the Democrats. These are people who are taking time out from yelling at clouds to go cast their protest votes for Dilbert Dumbfark.

Agreed.

New York Times had a pretty good article on this. There were only 220 counties in the entire US that voted less Democratic/more Republican in 2008 as opposed to 2004, and it's a contiguous swath of land drifting from the Ozarks, through Appalachia and up into the Allegheny. These the descendants of pious Irish and Scottish immigrants who migrated and settled into the mountains because the East Coast was too bustling/bourgeoisie, the "Gentele" Deep South too aristocratic, and neither one white enough. The only thing they hate more than a black man is an extremely educated and accomplished black man who makes them feel inadequate. The good news for Obama is they're relatively cncentrated/confined and don't bleed much into significant states in the electoral map, they're dying out and they aren't going to turn out in record droves for the Mormon blue blood brat with two degrees from Harvard.

Honestly, who gives a crap? I'm pretty far on the Obama > Romney camp, and even I have absolutely no burning desire to go out and vote for Obama in a meaningless primary right now

It was amusing when Romney couldn't crushingly win a primary because there was a legitimate race going on... but trying to interpret results when every single voter knows that the outcome makes no difference whatsoever is insane.

FlashHarry: hey, look! another farking moron republican who doesn't understand the "solid south!"

FTFY

/sorry if it's already been fixed

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:

Well, the article used "Democratic" extensively and "Democrat strongholds" doesn't really bother me but every time I hear "Democrat party" I look up and, lo and behold, there's an asshole.

That's because that terminology started with, and was primarily pushed by the full derp wing of the GOP, especially Limbaugh et al.

Gdiguy: Honestly, who gives a crap? I'm pretty far on the Obama > Romney camp, and even I have absolutely no burning desire to go out and vote for Obama in a meaningless primary right now

It was amusing when Romney couldn't crushingly win a primary because there was a legitimate race going on... but trying to interpret results when every single voter knows that the outcome makes no difference whatsoever is insane.

I show up to the primaries and midterm elections because you never know what wacky sh*t is up as a proposition here.

This time we get one for a cigarette tax and some city union/pension stuff. plus the primaries.

Oily Taintz thinks she's actually running for the Senate. Lulzy.

cirby: Dr.Zom:
When I pointed out that many Dems were unhappy that Obama wasn't liberal enough they both looked like I had kicked them in the stomach. It had never even occurred on them.

Either way, he loses votes.

The folks who are unhappy because he's too "right wing" (AKA "centrist" to the rest of the country) are the ones you mentioned - the ten percent or so who wear Che t-shirts without irony. They may be nuts, but they also tend to vote for the Democrat. Those people don't even show up on the Democratic side in polling - they're some of the "independents" that get stuck in the middle on the charts.

Likewise, there are people out there who think Romney is sorta left-wing. The difference is, of course, that most of those folks will still hold their noses and vote for Romney because he's nowhere near as far "left" politically to them as Obama is "right wing" to the leftist crazies.

Hey, it's not a Che t-shirt, it's a Karl Marx t-shirt, and I may be crazy but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

themadtupper: Not that Newsbusters is worth a damn or should be taken seriously ever, but Clinton beat Obama in landslides in both of those primaries:

Arkansas
Kentucky

Yeah, this. Submitter and admin aren't even trolling. They are just farking making things up out of whole cloth. Why not just newsflash spam the queue with random links and headlines about how Elizabeth Warren molests boy scouts. It would not be significantly different than the last few weeks worth of greens.

In all fairness, Kansas has had several democratic governors as well as some democrat representatives. However, we are actually redder than Texas when it comes to presidential politics.

In this election, I still say anything can happen.

I did some calculations after looking up results from presidentelect.org. Assuming their information is correct and I didn't mess up in looking at when Democrats won Arkansas and Kentucky which was quite hard since they changed layouts depending on election year and didn't use blue for Democrats consistently and red for Republicans consistently. I found this:

Since 1900 it is true that the Democratic candidate won both Arkansas and Kentucky the majority of the time. The Democratic candidate won Arkansas 20 out of 28 elections or 71.43% of presidential elections and won Kentucky 16 out of 28 elections or 57.14% of presidential elections. However, since 1960 the Democratic candidate has won Arkansas 5 out of 13 Presidential Elections or only 38.46% of the time, and Kentucky 4 out 13 elections or 30.77%. In both 1992 and 1996, Clinton won his home state of Arkansas, and any one who knows history knows what happened during the 1960s.

So, I guess in short what I'm saying is Newsbusters is neglecting to account for the major changes in voting patterns since the 1960s.

47 is the new 42: I did some calculations after looking up results from presidentelect.org. Assuming their information is correct and I didn't mess up in looking at when Democrats won Arkansas and Kentucky which was quite hard since they changed layouts depending on election year and didn't use blue for Democrats consistently and red for Republicans consistently. I found this:

Since 1900 it is true that the Democratic candidate won both Arkansas and Kentucky the majority of the time. The Democratic candidate won Arkansas 20 out of 28 elections or 71.43% of presidential elections and won Kentucky 16 out of 28 elections or 57.14% of presidential elections. However, since 1960 the Democratic candidate has won Arkansas 5 out of 13 Presidential Elections or only 38.46% of the time, and Kentucky 4 out 13 elections or 30.77%. In both 1992 and 1996, Clinton won his home state of Arkansas, and any one who knows history knows what happened during the 1960s.

So, I guess in short what I'm saying is Newsbusters is neglecting to account for the major changes in voting patterns since the 1960s.

Accounting for that would mean tacitly admitting that the modern Republican party was founded on racism. It isn't just an unpleasant characteristic of some of their more distasteful supporters, it's the central plank of the conservative platform, the one issue most responsible for all their political sucess. It's blindingly obvious and will be a major theme in future history books about this period, but hey, they have a black friend so it's all okay.

Everybody knows that anyone who votes against dear leader is a homophobic racist.

Unemployment is good for people.

Bonzo_1116: Gdiguy: Honestly, who gives a crap? I'm pretty far on the Obama > Romney camp, and even I have absolutely no burning desire to go out and vote for Obama in a meaningless primary right now

It was amusing when Romney couldn't crushingly win a primary because there was a legitimate race going on... but trying to interpret results when every single voter knows that the outcome makes no difference whatsoever is insane.

I show up to the primaries and midterm elections because you never know what wacky sh*t is up as a proposition here.

This time we get one for a cigarette tax and some city union/pension stuff. plus the primaries.

Oily Taintz thinks she's actually running for the Senate. Lulzy.

Yeah, I didn't actually know about that until I got the primary sample ballot a couple weeks ago and did a double-take... but even then, I don't have a strong opinion on whether I'm going to bother with the dem presidential nomination, since it's so meaningless

YELLOL: Everybody knows that anyone who votes against dear leader is a homophobic racist.

That's not at ALL true.

Some of them are millionaires.
Some of them are just stupid.

DemonEater: YELLOL: Everybody knows that anyone who votes against dear leader is a homophobic racist.

That's not at ALL true.

Some of them are millionaires.
Some of them are just stupid.

Or, millionaires who just happen to be down on their luck at this particular moment or believe they would be if Taxbama weren't in office.

I can't tell if Subby is sarcastic or stupid, but I guess I'll just throw out there anyway that Obama did NOT beat Hillary in KY in 2008. He was defeated 2:1.

/beating Hillary in KY
//mmmmmm

A lot of progressive Dems are not happy with Obama.


/Doesn't mean they'll vote for RMoney.

What I got out of the article:

CNN: Should Obama be worried about his support among Democrats because WV, Arkansas and KY?

Cardona: No, he shouldn't be. Look, Arkansas and Kentucky have never been hotbeds of the Democratic Party. There's no real infrastructure there. There's no organization by the Obama campaign there.

Nutclusters: Nu-uh, if you go back to the 1900s you'll clearly see...

Me: *facepalm*

The Democratic nomination process is a done deal. Those so-called protest votes are practically meaningless and less a source of concern for Obama and more a source of embarrassment for people who live in those states. They simply aren't important compared his support in Swing States and Blue states.The most important point that Cardona made there was about the fact the GOP's recent attempts to stir up their own base by refighting the culture wars of the last 50 years all over again have actually made the Dem base more motivated than the GOP.

2012 is gonna be a battle of enthusiasm gaps and so far Obama seems to be ahead there.

12349876: ShawnDoc: A lot of the lack of support Obama is getting from "Democratic strongholds" can be chalked up to being a protest vote because he isn't being liberal enough

A lot of these areas you have people who evolved Democrat->Reagan Democrat->Republican->Tea Partier but never bothered changing their registration.

[inigomontoya.jpg]

12349876: ShawnDoc: A lot of the lack of support Obama is getting from "Democratic strongholds" can be chalked up to being a protest vote because he isn't being liberal enough

A lot of these areas you have people who evolved Democrat->Reagan Democrat->Republican->Tea Partier but never bothered changing their registration.

In Kentucky, it's more that the younger generation is falling for the emotional campaigns of Republicans. The older generation is still FDR liberal. At least in backwoods Kentucky, where union rights were necessary for their survival.

/Bloody Harlan County, etc

WhyteRaven74: Geee it wouldn't have anything to do with Obama doing absolutely zero campaigning in those states and people voting for other options just for the lulz.

This. Hillary spoke from my dentist's porch in a small town in Appalachian Kentucky. Obama went straight to Louisville for a dinner party fundraiser, then his campaign implied racism was the reason he lost.

/yep, still bitter

I'm enjoying a complete lack of understanding by the author of the article about what the term "Democrat" means in Kentucky. We still have the Old South Democrats here. Our Democrat governor is one of them. They're from the wing of the Democratic party that produced Strom Thurmond. Seriously, our Democrats are more conservative than Maine Republicans. We have a good ole' boy network that runs into the mantle of the planet.

The word means absolutely nothing here from an ideological bent, and this author is either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant. And even then, that ignores the fact that one our senators is the most powerful Republican in the country and the other is the figurehead for Tea Party insanity. The few Democrats we have in the Congressional delegation are all blue dogs.

If you look at the results of the Kentucky election, it's interesting to compare the Republican and Democratic primary results. Obama got more votes in the D primary than Romney got in the R, but Obama only got around 57% of the vote running unopposed. Romney was running against 3 other candidates, and still managed to get the lion's share.

More people voted in the D primary than did in the R. I see a lot of votes for 'uncommited' in the D primary, but I'd imagine they're protest votes against Obama's failure to be liberal enough. They'll probably stay home or hold their noses and vote for Obama in the fall.

California voted Republican in 1980 and 1984: Republican Stronghold

Shostie: gameshowhost: Gosh, I wonder what transpired in the mid-'60s... hmm.

Lots of stuff.

Free love, moon shot, aerated president head, Vietnam...

WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE...

Lando Lincoln: No, seriously guys - if Obama is losing in Arkansas and Kentucky, then he's in real trouble here.

This is what some really really stupid Republicans think.

And if he won those states, the lesson for Republicans is that they haven't been conservative enough.

Now we're at the point where people are trying to explain why Obama's bad performance in these states is no big deal... nor is his flipflop/non-support of practical gay marriage thanks to Biden... or focusing on painting Romney as some sorta evil capitalist instead of the economy...

it's pretty wild.

I'm not an Obama supporter so I'm getting a kick out these replies... oh wait. Anyway, regardless of your views on the President, his campaign is farking up almost everything right now. Romney isn't really doing anything except highlighting Obama's missteps and bad "optics." I hate that word, but it's true for the moment.

Obama's campaign has yet to define its message for this election. They are all over the place.

skylabdown: Obama's campaign has yet to define its message for this election. They are all over the place.

All he needs to define his campaign by is, "Look. I'm not that douchebag."

I live in Lexington. First of all, the fact that Kentucky has a Democratic governor means shiat. Anybody who lives in this state can tell you that the biggest reason that Beshear won so easily is that David Williams, the GOP nominee, is just about the most unpopular politician in the state. He's reviled everywhere except his home district. Even other Republicans hate him. The instant that he won the primary, everybody knew that he was dead meat. Beshear is also the very definition of a blue dog/conservative Democrat.

Kentucky went for GWB twice and for McCain in 2008. Even when Clinton won the state in 1996, he won it by less than 1% over Dole. If not for Perot taking almost 9%, Dole probably would have won the state.

Like a lot of southern states, the two largest counties (Jefferson/Louisville and Fayette/Lexington) tend to be much more blue. Not coincidentally, they're also home to major universities. The rest of the state is DEEP red.

The mother of a friend of mine keeps posting on Facebook that Kentucky "sent a message" to Obama on Tuesday. Ummm, sure. The message is that he's not going to win Kentucky. Of course, nobody every farking thought he would to begin with - and he's going to win the overall election anyway. This place drives me crazy.

you are a puppet: Including 1996? Okay? So you're saying Clinton won his home state plus a neighboring state and no Dem has won there since...

No no no! You're forgetting that time that a democrat won the democratic primary there.

Let me guess. This is one of those things where idiots on the right are pretending that all the old racist democrats in and sympathetic to the south didn't switch parties in the 60s as a backlash against LBJ and the civil rights movement and start swinging election results in those states in favor of republicans?

*link click*

Crux of argument:

Arkansas voted Democratic in every presidential election year from 1920 through 1964

You idiots need some new talking points. Your lies and disinformation have become too predictable. Your derp bores me.

malaktaus: 47 is the new 42: I did some calculations after looking up results from presidentelect.org. Assuming their information is correct and I didn't mess up in looking at when Democrats won Arkansas and Kentucky which was quite hard since they changed layouts depending on election year and didn't use blue for Democrats consistently and red for Republicans consistently. I found this:

Since 1900 it is true that the Democratic candidate won both Arkansas and Kentucky the majority of the time. The Democratic candidate won Arkansas 20 out of 28 elections or 71.43% of presidential elections and won Kentucky 16 out of 28 elections or 57.14% of presidential elections. However, since 1960 the Democratic candidate has won Arkansas 5 out of 13 Presidential Elections or only 38.46% of the time, and Kentucky 4 out 13 elections or 30.77%. In both 1992 and 1996, Clinton won his home state of Arkansas, and any one who knows history knows what happened during the 1960s.

So, I guess in short what I'm saying is Newsbusters is neglecting to account for the major changes in voting patterns since the 1960s.

Accounting for that would mean tacitly admitting that the modern Republican party was founded on racism. It isn't just an unpleasant characteristic of some of their more distasteful supporters, it's the central plank of the conservative platform, the one issue most responsible for all their political sucess. It's blindingly obvious and will be a major theme in future history books about this period, but hey, they have a black friend so it's all okay.

Yeah, it's been pretty funny to hear talking heads and politico wonks try to describe this as anything other than pure racism. "It's not that they just hate Obama because he's black, it's because of policy reasons too. They've been breaking away from the Democrats for a long time". Yeah, policy reasons based on race. Their entire political concern is based on the idea that either money will be taken out of their pockets and given to "blah" people, or that they're so far behind and backward because the government has left them behind to help "blah" people.

Snapper Carr: [i.imgur.com image 200x150]

A lot of progressive Dems are not happy with Obama.


/Doesn't mean they'll vote for RMoney.

Uhm, I'm thinking there might be several reasons why Obama would have a poor showing in Arkansas and Kentucky, not being liberal enough being the very, very least of them.

Fact: Obama hasn't a fark to give about losing either state. If you rank each in terms of necessity combined with their ability to go Blue, then both these states are so far down on the list the only reason he'll put any money there is to help downticket races and make Romney spend cash. It's like when the Obama campaign decided to troll McCain in the last week prior to the 2008 election and go on the air in Arizona.

I love these news organizations trying to turn this into a horse race. Throw a meaningless national poll in with ZOMG he's losing Arkansas and voila: DRAMA!!! Stay tuned!! please!

Lando Lincoln: No, seriously guys - if Obama is losing in Arkansas and Kentucky, then he's in real trouble here.

This is what some really really stupid Republicans think.

I'm still trying to figure out how winning a non-open primary 60-40 is "losing".

But then again, I'm dealing with people who think 51-49 is a "mandate"....

PirateKing: Romney was running against 3 other candidates, and still managed to get the lion's share.

All three of whom are no longer running, so he essentially was unopposed as well, don't you think?

What gets lost in this media narrative is the fact Obama got more votes in KY than Romney.