week 1: what's the deal with west virginia?

In class the other day, a couple different issues were brought up. I decided to take a closer look at some of the stuff going on in the 2008 presidential campaign. As many of you are hopefully aware, there is a close race between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic nomination, with Obama ahead by a slim margin. The West Virginia primary was last Tuesday, Clinton being the victor. The day of the primary, the Washington Times featured an editorial about some trends surrounding the state. The state has proven to be important in the fate of the election for the Democrats. The author of the editorial said that for a majority of the time, West Virginia is needed to win the whole election. If Al Gore had won the state, he would have won the election, but the Florida recount problems did not help either.

I thought this was an interesting idea, though it is probably just a coincidence. Although some people think that their one, single vote cannot make a difference, a state can make a difference. I find it to be a little strange that it turns out to be this one in particular, unless it is just because of being able to win over the demographics of the state. According to CNN's tracking of the primaries and caucuses, Clinton only won twenty pledged delegates in West Virginia. This does not seem like that many to me with the sixty-seven delegates in the North Carolina primary the week before.

I found it a little strange that the author put so much emphasis on West Virginia. When I mentioned something about the editorial to someone, he said it was utterly ridiculous and a mere coincidence at most. That was a little harsh. Former presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, Sr. were able to win the presidential elections because of West Virginia. I'm sure there would have to have been some others, those were just a few examples given.

Here's the deal. Obama currently has more superdelegates than Clinton, even with her win in West Virginia. Past elections have shown that Democratic success lies with the vote in West Virginia, as the winner has been affected by the state in the case of Gore. That should mean West Virginia's vote in the general election is seemingly crucial, not as much with the primary as Clinton is pretty far behind.

Part of CNN’s article “What Might West Virginia’s Primary Mean?” read, “If Obama gets the nomination and it looks like the only way he can win is to get those West Virginia Democrats back, you can be sure he will think seriously about asking Clinton to go on the ticket.“ It is pretty clear that Obama has a lead and may very well beat Clinton. There is a problem when it comes down to a state like West Virginia. Bush won in 2000 because of social issues and guns as we got the “Bush Democrats” in West Virginia at the time. It could be though that the vote comes down to West Virginia because of the certain social issues and stances taken in this traditionally Democratic state. When the time comes in November for the general election, this state could play a role in which party wins, but it will also depend on which Democrat gets the nomination. I guess we’ll see how much of a difference one state can actually make when it comes down to the end of the primaries and then to the general election.