Last night, Barack Obama won the Arkansas primary by a 58/42 margin, beating a nobody, with 162K votes cast. He beat “uncommitted” in Kentucky by 58/42 with 206K votes cast. In 2008, he lost to Hillary Clinton in Arkansas by 70/26, with 314K votes cast, and he also lost to her in Kentucky by a 65/30 margin, with 700K votes cast.
In other words, turnout was 1/2 or less than 1/3 of what it was in 2008, in states where Obama didn’t do well in 2008 among Democrats. I don’t know exactly what this tells us, but it’s pretty consistent with the 2008 facts that Southern states aren’t enamored with Obama for reasons mainly having to do with race. So here’s how the Post plays it:
That’s from their mobile edition – their web edition headline is more sedate. You’ll have to read the article to see exactly how Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake get to that conclusion from the conventional view that Obama has some issues with Southern Democrats, but the path involves not mentioning turnout, using 2004 instead of 2008 as a reference point, and cherry-picking like this:
“Race is definitely a factor for some Texans but not the majority,” said former congressman Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.). “The most significant factor is the perception/reality that the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues.”
“Former” Congressman Charlie Stenholm is a lobbyist in DC who hasn’t served in Congress for almost 8 years. That’s how far you need to go to find some Democrat who thinks that Obama’s in trouble with this own party.