Are WV and KY now unwinnable for the dems?

[Red Willow]

Well?

[memphis]

Certainly not. They're just very particular that a Dem comes from South of the Mason-Dixon line.

[Red Willow]

But Clinton barely won the latter twice and may not have had it not been for Perot, despite a heavy Dem lead in party registration. And the former has increasingly become a haven for 'values' voters, so it really may not be winnable anymore either.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Absolutely not.  Hillary would've carried WV, and had a halfway decent shot at KY.  The right candidate could easily win both of those states.

[Red Willow]

Absolutely not.  Hillary would've carried WV, and had a halfway decent shot at KY.  The right candidate could easily win both of those states.

Warner? He's really the only moderate Dem who's even being considered.

[Vepres]

West Virginia is definitely winnable for the Democrats. Hillary and Edwards would have made this state at least a toss-up. The reason for the recent losses for Democrats in this state is simply because they fielded poor candidates for the state. Gore had long since strayed from his southern roots and become far more liberal, or was at least perceived that way. Kerry and Obama were big city liberals, so it's no surprise they lost there. Any southern Democrat could put up a good fight in the state.

As for Kentucky, it's probably out of reach even with a southerner on top of the ticket.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

What Vepres said. WV can be won for the Democrats with the right environment and/or the right candidates, but I cannot say the same thing for Kentucky.

[The Night Owlditor]

Are you speaking just at the presidential level, or at the state level as well? At the state level, Democrats control basically everything in West Virginia - all executive offices and supermajority statuses in both chambers of the state legislature, then you have Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller both Dems as the state's two U.S. Senators and Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall both Dems as two out of three of the state's U.S. Representatives, the other being Shelley Moore Capito (R). Then in Kentucky, most of the executive offices are also held by Democrats and Democrats control the Kentucky House of Representatives. So if you're referring to the state level, then yes absolutely Democrats can win (and have won) elections in Kentucky and West Virginia.

At the presidential level, it just depends on the candidate. I agree with everyone's assessment that any Southern moderate populist WASP Democrat can win Kentucky and West Virginia (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton). Gore lost the states because he did lose his Southern roots and became more of a "D.C. liberal," and Kerry and Obama were both big-city liberals which didn't help their image in these states. Hillary and/or John Edwards would have absolutely won West Virginia by a moderately significant amount and Kentucky narrowly. I do think that if the economy recovers and Obama remains relatively popular, he stands a chance at winning West Virginia but I doubt he can reclaim Kentucky in 2012.

The presence of the Bible thumpers/Religious Right (I call them the Christian Taliban), which pretty much controls the Republican Party's message nowadays, and their hateful and bigoted agenda of stopping the killing of babies and preserving the "sanctity" of marriage (whatever that means) will always appeal to the least educated and least tolerant voters out there, who for the most part live in predominantly white and rural areas (Republican strongholds). You have a lot of these in West Virginia and Kentucky, but voters in West Virginia tend to vote with their pocketbooks as opposed to their Bibles. The West Virginia and Kentucky Democratic Parties, at the state level, are much more socially conservative than the mainstream Democratic Party as well.

I could tolerate voting for a libertarian-leaning Republican if the party would abandon these nut jobs - they give Christianity a bad name. Jesus preached love and acceptance, not hate and intolerance.

[pbrower2a]

Obama lost West Virginia when the GOP floated a canard that Obama was an environmental extremist who would "punish" coal. If Obama should prove good for coal, then that canard will prove irrelevant in West Virginia, a state that Obama was toying with relatively late in 2008.

West Virginia is as much Rust Belt (heavy industry and mining) as Southern/Appalachian. An effective stimulus package dedicated to infrastructure will serve coal very well (as a component of steel production) -- and glass. Both are essential to the big projects of our times. Construction is the #1 variable use of steel.

Obama wins Kentucky only if he is able to win poor whites (Kentucky has lots of them) who used to vote for Carter and Clinton. Otherwise -- absolutely no chance.  Even if things go well in Kentucky, Obama loses this state to Huckabee should he be the GOP nominee. Culture decides how states vote, and what candidates can win.

[Smash255]

West Virginia is possible under the right circumstances.   If the economy is improved,  the Stimulus package works well, and they see Obama doesn't hate coal as much as the GOP tried to portray him as, Obama has some chance in West Virginia.  Although not as much as Clinton or Edwards would simply due to him being black.  Kentucky on the other hand I don't really see any way unless we are talking about a national victory in the teens.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

They're less and less winnable in a non-landslide election. Mathematically, to win them, Obama needs more than 20 points lead.
And trends aren't favorabe for dems here.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

I'll say this much: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Red Willow]

Maybe to rephrase it: Is the presidential candidate now REQUIRED to be pro-life in order to win here?

[hcallega]

No, Clinton and Carter were not pro-life, and neither are Edwards or Clinton. Both Byrd and Rockefeller are pro-choice as well, though with some exceptions. I would say that it would certainly help, but I don't think abortion is the only thing that defines a candidates social conservatism. In Kentucky however, religion is more important it it would be a big +.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Maybe to rephrase it: Is the presidential candidate now REQUIRED to be pro-life in order to win here?

No, of course not.

[Nym90]

Definitely not. Mark Warner or Mark Pryor would win WV and would have a good chance at KY, for example. Phil Bredesen would win both, but would be too far right to win the Dem nomination. But yes, a northern liberal Dem isn't going to win these states barring a landslide.

It's kinda like asking if a Republican can win Connecticut or Maine.

[Lunar]

I think people who assume Hillary would be very competitive in these states are ignoring the different dynamics between a primary and a general election.  These states had majority Democratic populations very involved in the primaries, with name recognition and the news playing a big role at the time, but once Hillary Clinton's voting record was played out [identical to Barack's except on war and her health care plan was even further to the left] in a negative light, the states would have lurched to the right.

She may have won WV, who knows, but general elections have different dynamics

[Red Willow]

No, Clinton and Carter were not pro-life, and neither are Edwards or Clinton. Both Byrd and Rockefeller are pro-choice as well, though with some exceptions. I would say that it would certainly help, but I don't think abortion is the only thing that defines a candidates social conservatism. In Kentucky however, religion is more important it it would be a big +.

Carter ran before the Moral Majority was formed, and he campaigned as a born again Christian. The abortion issue was not as political then. Also, the states weren't voting on social issues as much in the 90s. If Kerry and Clinton have the same 'values' (that word makes me cringe), than why switch?

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Definitely not. Mark Warner or Mark Pryor would win WV and would have a good chance at KY, for example. Phil Bredesen would win both, but would be too far right to win the Dem nomination. But yes, a northern liberal Dem isn't going to win these states barring a landslide.

It's kinda like asking if a Republican can win Connecticut or Maine.

Connecticut ? Certainly not. It voted Obama by a more than 20 points margin, even with Lieberman endorsing McCain.

Maine is a strange state, so everything is possible.

[Ogre Mage]

West Virginia is unwinnable for Obama, but not necessarily for other Democrats.  Kentucky is likely unwinnable.

[JerryBrown2010]

Yes West Virginia only voted Gop in 2008 because they didn't like how Hillary Clinton lost the nominee. Clinton would also have a chance to Win Kentucky.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

west virginia up until 2000 voted for economic populist issues, and after the columbine issue they started voting on gun owners right and national security issues.  They would of voted for Hillary Clinton based on being tough on national security but not Obama.  The same fate that befell on Gore and Kerry happened to Obama.  It mattered losing west virginia in those elections but it didn't matter now.

[Red Willow]

I find it hard to believe that Hillary could have carried LA. Landrieu has built a good image for herself in the state, but she still gets close elections. Hillary would probably have to carry about 35% of whites to win, which would probably only be possible against Romney. She also would not have heavy black turnout.

[The Night Owlditor]

I think people who assume Hillary would be very competitive in these states are ignoring the different dynamics between a primary and a general election.  These states had majority Democratic populations very involved in the primaries, with name recognition and the news playing a big role at the time, but once Hillary Clinton's voting record was played out [identical to Barack's except on war and her health care plan was even further to the left] in a negative light, the states would have lurched to the right.

She may have won WV, who knows, but general elections have different dynamics

Agreed about the differences in a primary and general election, but I think it's just common knowledge that Hillary would have won West Virginia. Every hypothetical general election match-up poll that I saw between Hillary and McCain had her always leading in West Virginia with mixed results in Kentucky with McCain narrowly leading by anywhere from 4-5 points and one poll had Clinton up by 9 points, so I'd say that had she been the nominee, West Virginia would have been a leans Democratic state and I'd categorize Kentucky as a tossup state. True, we saw after New Hampshire that polls aren't always right. But, Bill Clinton won West Virginia by big numbers in 1992 and 1996. West Virginia has a fond love for the Clintons, for which I admire the Mountain State. It is, after all, the Best Virginia.

She certainly would have made all the Outer South states (WV, KY, TN, AR) very competitive as well as possibly Louisiana (Bill won this state twice as well, granted this was before Katrina). She also would have won Missouri too, hands down.

[pbrower2a]

2012 is possible for Obama if he has a good economic record. The 2012 campaign will be a national campaign instead of the targeted campaign of 2008.

Poor Southern whites are the most capricious of voters. Look how the South has voted since 1944:

1944   FDR
1948   Thurmond
1952   Stevenson
1956   Stevenson
1960   Kennedy
1964   split between LBJ and Goldwater
1968   Wallace
1972   Nixon
1976   Carter
1980   Reagan
1984   Reagan
1988   GHW Bush
1992   Clinton
1996   Clinton
2000   Commodus
2004   Commodus
2008   McCain

Anything is possible for them in 2012.