In Kentucky, “uncommitted” kept things interesting in the Democratic primary tonight. Obama won, 57-42. But he was running against air.
The results come on the heels of West Virginia’s Democratic primary earlier this monthwhere a felon incarcerated in Texas took 41 percent of the vote from the president.
In Kentucky, Obama did get more total votes than presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who won the GOP primary with almost 67 percent of the vote.
Obama had more than 118,600 votes to Romney’s approximately 117,100.
Kentucky is red. No chance it will go for Obama in November. So Axelrod and company will float that his poor showing is due to the economy, and his race. And by the way, his race. Not the high unemployment, or the attacks on religious freedom, ObamaCare, the war on coal, none of that. It will be 100%, grade-A
The fact that they’ll be throwing fellow Democrats under the bus? Less than irrelevant.
Update: They’ll blame the Arkansas result on racism, too.
He couldn’t even break 60% in an uncontested primary. Obama needs to wake the eff up and start packing his bags. This nation can’t afford 4 more years of his nonsense.
Over at In from the cold, they relate how something similar happened to Bill Clinton in 1980.
Clinton learned his lesson and made a comeback.
The operative word there being “learned.” Obama has shown no such capacity.
As long as the teaching happens, I’m unconcerned if Obama learns. In fact, I’d rather he leave class dazed and confused never to assimilate the lesson or attempt another run at the office.
“The results come on the heels of West Virginia’s Democratic primary earlier this monthwhere a felon incarcerated in Texas took 41 percent of the vote from the president.”
Geez, the least they could do is pick a felon from their own state.
There are some jobs West Virginians won’t do.
He is in a FEDERAL prison in Texas. Not from Texas.
“Lessons learned” is not a phrase or concept recognized in the exhaulted circles inhabited by The Won.
Western Kentucky is coal country. When your energy policies require shutting down a major industry in a state you’re gonna lose that state. Did nobody tell
the President that coal mines have workers too? And they’re unionized?
He bought the unions, or rather, the union bosses. In the community organizer world, you rile people up, they pay you off, you leave your members, constituents, supporters hanging. Oh, they’ll break some ground, or do something but that is just to have activity to justify funneling the money, which oddly gets spent but nothing gets built.
You need to have coal mines in order to have coal miner unions. If the President’s energy policy shuts down the coal mines then the coal miners union bosses lose their cushy jobs. I don’t think they put all that much effort to helping the President and may have worked against him.
I think what needs to be considered is that they might be voting against Obama because he is not liberal enough, meaning they actually expect checks to be delivered on demand and have not been happy with their cut of the take.
I submit that if this attitude is not confronted and defeated, this nation, facing a demographic revolution that should not have happened and that was moved along by deceit, illegality, and dishonesty, is done for. We have a few years at best, and the GOP appears incapable or unwilling of providing the needed correctives.
Kentucky has Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul in the Senate. This is not liberal territory to begin with. Not as red as it might be because of the unions, but certainly not liberal.
If a black person votes for, or roots for, a black person because they are black it is totally justifiable solidarity.
If a white person votes for, or roots for, a white person it is racism.
In this crazy PC world we live in, I suppose it makes sense.
Time to end all forms of affirmative action and government sponsored racial identity in all forms, including the census. No more officially endorsed racial identification.
then people will be judged solely on the content of their character, what kind of nonsense is that?
“7. lester
If a black person votes for, or roots for, a black person because they are black it is totally justifiable solidarity.”
Actually the assumption is always made that if a black person votes for another black person, it’s only because that person is black. The idea that they may agree with political position is never advanced.
“If a white person votes for, or roots for, a white person it is racism.”
Since white people have been voting for other white people for the entire history of our country, you most be advancing the idea that whites are automatically racist. Of course, then you are left with the problem explaining why black people vote for white politicians, and white people vote for black politicians.
“In this crazy PC world we live in, I suppose it makes sense.”
Actually neither of your statements make any sense, because you’re trying to take partisan political statements and make them general principles.
“Time to end all forms of affirmative action and government sponsored racial identity in all forms, including the census. No more officially endorsed racial identification.”
I find it interesting that when racial identity was a disadvantage for blacks, it took about four hundred years to get that corrected. Now that it confers some small advantage, some people find that intolerable. But yes, let’s get rid of all those varied form of racial identification. It will make it easier for whites to go back to favoring whites again.
Wow! You used a lot of words in order to simply express your support for the hypocrisy of the Left. See how few words you really needed? lol
I don’t think affirmative action benefits blacks. Many Americans of every color are college material, and there are colleges and universities for the many different levels of preparedness and the many different majors. It’s very American to want to go to a college and further your education so I think this is a positive.
So, you have a black, an Asian and a white all with similar abilities and interests (say, engineering). All three apply to, let’s say, Berkeley (ranked #2), Auburn(#30ish) and Wright State (way down there). They’re all Auburn material, but the black gets into Berkeley because of affirmative action. The white gets into Auburn and the Asian gets into Wright State because of affirmative action. The black flunks out because he’s in over his head, and then he has all those student loans that he owes 6 months after he flunks out. The white does okay, and the Asian busts the curve because he belongs in a much better school. Stereotypes are reinforced, and the black joins the huge population of unemployed young blacks. I personally think the minuses outweigh the pluses at this point.
Clearly, Mike Giles, you don’t recognize “sarcasm” when you see it.
Lester’s 2 statements were tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of how things are “in this crazy PC world we live in”, not a request for how they should be.
-Jesse
“I find it interesting that when racial identity was a disadvantage for blacks, it took about four hundred years to get that corrected. Now that it confers some small advantage, some people find that intolerable. But yes, let’s get rid of all those varied form of racial identification. It will make it easier for whites to go back to favoring whites again.”
Sir, you have won me over. I’m on your side now. It is time for the chickens to come home to roost.
As a new convert though, I just need to know a little more exactly what we are fighting for, so I can make the appropriate judgment calls over time on who and when to unperson. Will we be discriminating against whites for four hundred years (eye for an eye), or have we decided a smaller amount of time will be acceptable? And will it be just “small advantages”, or will the stakes rise as the white demographic shrinks in relative proportion? Has any thought been given to splitting the Southern European kids (who were not exactly invited into country clubs or encouraged to marry daughters of industrial titans in the old days) from the WASPs (the true trouble-makers), or are we going to use a one-size fits all approach?
At any rate, regardless of the answer, I am excited to be on board and look forward to working as part of the team. FORWARD!
(Naturally, since I am now on the right-thinking side, even though I am basically a WASP, I do expect the advantages that accrue for being a good kulak fighting for the people, instead of a class enemy. I am fairly sure that there is Indian-blood in my background…is there any possibility I can get a college job somewhere now?)
Logicus:
Considered, and tossed. Highly unlikely – got anything to back that up?
None at all in this case, which is why it was not said as fact. Sorry I damaged your pet cause, whatever it may.
Of course, I would be delighted if it was indeed the case that Democratic constituencies in fact did not want increased government monies. I presume this might be the fundamental nature of your objection. If so, I’m sure many will find it an intriguing interpretation of Democratic politics these days. Whether or not they buy it is an entirely different affair.
However, in my defense, there is at least *one* Obama primary opponent, whose name and state escape me for the moment, whose motivation is essentially as I said in my first–Obama being not liberal enough. I read it last week in a source I trust. I leave it to others to determine whether or not I am blowing smoke or not.
If your objection is to my characterization of the demographic revolution currently underway as unwarranted, I do look forward to your revelation of your source as to its justified character. God? Divine punishment? Do tell.
If your objection is to my characterization of it as having been aided by deceit, dishonesty, and illegality–there is no hope for you, and you are merely a political hack. How many were amnestied in 1986, what are the current numbers potentially eligible for amnesty today, and was there ever any great public debate on the immigration reforms of the 60s where the public agreed that the intent was for a demographic inversion? Please back up your assertions, as you asked of me.
Finally, as to my characterization of the GOP–please go to Powerline, and read the post
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/overcoming-mr-snuffleupagus-republicanism-in-the-fast-and-furious-investigation.php
And then tell me about how the GOP can always be counted on to always fight the good fights that need to be fought, regardless of cost. Since I believe this also might be a true cause of your discontent, I will simply say that the GOP has more than amply demonstrated that, when arrayed against current opposing political forces, including the media, that it too often either doesn’t have the inherent ability to overcome those forces, or the strength of character, or both.
You, sir, have a very nice day.
got anything to back that up?
Which “that” are you referring to? Because there is an abundance of evidence to back up much of what Logicus says.
DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, BUT IT MAKES AN INTERESTING SCENARIO
Perhaps the poor Obama primary performances are not signs of Democrat dissatisfaction, but the results of the Democrats testing their vote generation fraud machine prior to the general election. They expect to have to generate fake Obama votes at a never-before scale, and are using the safe primary as a test platform to refine and perfect their technique with little or no scrutiny.
DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, BUT IT MAKES AN INTERESTING SCENARIO
Just out of curiosity, were any other Republican candidates besides Romney on the ballot. Though all the other candidates have suspended their campaigns, I would assume it’s to late to get their names off the ballot.
Just out of curiosity, why is it that you’re able to ask the question on the internet and yet you’re apparently unable to use that same internet to look up the answer for yourself. Are you really that ridiculously inept? Or is there some point you think you’re making?
There are no stupid questions.
But there are snarky comments.
Kentucky’s Republican ballot had Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich, not necessarily in that order.
You know I have this distinct impression that Obama just doesn’t really want to win. It’s far more advantageous for him to lose so as to promote his race-hustling lifestyle the likes of while will makes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jealous. He’ll always have the, “Nascent racism of white people in the United States if what kept me from being re-elected” card to play from now on. In his book ‘Dreams of My Father’ Obama is obviously per-occupied with his notions of latent racism in American culture. He has nothing to gain from disproving that theory by being re-elected. It’s far more lucrative for him to write another bio of his time in office and all the “hurdles” he faced from the “racist tea-baggers” and “good ole’ boy GOP”.