A common theory being tossed about is "racism."

Is racism just an easy excuse for losing Appalachia?

I am not sanguine about racism in America; racism permeates almost every facet of life around Detroit, my home town.

Could it be they just like Clinton better? Could it be they hope for a time like the 90s? Could it be they like Clinton's healthcare plan? Could they believe Clinton has shown strength in times of adversity? Could it be they believe Clinton cares? Could it be they think Clinton has more experience? Could it be they think Clinton could win the general election? Could it be they think Clinton would make a good President?

I've heard from people in their early 20's(!) who support Clinton because they are nostalgic for the economy of the 90's. I'll bet they are nostalgic for lower gas prices as well.

I never thought I'd see a balanced budget in my lifetime, you could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that the US budget had a surplus. Seems like ancient history now.

Not that HRC would balance the budget or Obama wouldn't, just that she seems more of a known factor.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

In most primaries, candidates typically have pockets of strength and weakness. Obama's strength is in the Northwest states like Washington/Oregon to Minnesota/Wisconsin, with everything in-between.

Hillary's strength is in West Virginia.

There are a lot of theories, some involve race, class, education, etc...but its impossible to say for sure. 3 or 4 months ago Obama's campaign released a memo which showed which states they'd win and lose, and with the exception of Rush Limbaugh's win in Indiana, the map has been pretty dead on.

Err...Hillary's strength is in Appalachia.

Which is still part of America, last time I checked. Maybe someone has a different map than I do.

____________________________

"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"

There are two ways of looking at this:

Why Clinton has won Appalachia

or

Why Obama has lost Appalachia

Thus far this discussion has focused on Clinton. But looking forward, with Obama as the presumptive nominee, it's interesting to consider the latter and its general election implications.

Does this mean he has little chance of winning WVA, NC, TN, and VA? What about OH?

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

I took issue with a commentary in the last issue of Knox Voice about people voting for Hillary because she was "familiar" meant because she was white especially, if what they wanted was "change." It could also mean people were familiar with the Clinton family and liked them and that a "change" back to the Clinton days from now is still a good change.

The unasked question is why Hillary is not gaining in the African-American vote?

Hey, would 92% African-American support for Obama indicate racism?

Wondering.........

It is likely BO will do pretty much what Carter did as POTUS. That is he will appoint a lot of leftist activists to prominent executive posts where they will drop the leaden hand of government regulation on the economy. Places like West Virginia feel the effects of this much more than New Yorker's do. Take Coal mining and environmental regulation as an example. The coal industry is fighting for its life against EPA and losing even now. Imagine the tide that will hit them if BO is running the EPA and the justice department.

Imagine the tide that will hit [the coal industry] if BO is running the EPA and the justice department.

You mean that mountain tops will finally stop getting blown up and the water around them and air everywhere will finally get cleaner? And MSHA would again be run by referees instead of the coal industry itself? That would mean that big coal would have to play by the same rules as everyone else! (Oil too.)

Obama as the presumptive nominee is likely to lose the election to McCain. Even though McCain is a poor candidate, Obama is worse.
Obama loses white working class men and women for specific reasons. One is that his policies hurt them to benefit others. Affirmative Action means "So Long White Boy" (as the Atlantic Monthly Strategy piece by a Dem Party guy attached to Obama memorably put it). It means specifically "No Whites Allowed" in government jobs, union promotions, government contracting, college admissions, college scholarships, and so on.
Why would any white working class voter go for Obama when his campaign is predicated on higher taxes on them to pay for more goodies for Blacks, Hispanics, at their expense. Or stuff they don't care about (save the Polar bears) but appeals to the Apple Computer crowd?
Another is Obama's long association with Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc, his disdain for the flag (matched with pandering by wearing it now), his weakness (as working class white voters see it) in wanting to hug and submit/surrender to Iran's Nutjob. Obama's endorsement by Hamas and the phonebanks for him in Gaza.
Last is cultural reasons. Crime hurts working class people the most, so do culturally liberal policies devaluing tradition, patriotism and so on, which provide the social glue that helps keep working families together and moving upwards. Rich liberals can afford divorce and family breakups and experimentation with drugs, crime-ridden "hip" neighborhoods because exiting them is easy with money. When you work for a living, such things mean death for any aspiration to move upwards.
Bottom line is Obama is explicitly the "Black Candidate" with 90% of Blacks voting for him, hip college kids with no responsibilities, and rich yuppies. All of whom want things from government that will make life miserable for working class whites. Again, chief among them, crime.
Democrats will test the theory that they can win with Blacks, College Kids, and yuppie professionals. I do not think they can. Certainly no working class white people in any great numbers have expressed the feeling that Obama will sacrifice his base (Blacks) for things like crime suppression, lower taxes, that benefit them. All his spending programs are aimed at Blacks or Save the Polar Bear yuppie stuff.

Just remember, Obama won a number of states and delegates PRIOR to the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers bombshells hit which showed his character and associations. Want to guess how he would do in those states now???

After all, it's only been 40 years since so many primaries have taken place. But consider these points:

In general elections, it's been rare for Dem nominees to win the majority of white votes EVER SINCE the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act were passed mid-Sixties. So of course racism plays a part in certain states.

In Appalachia, JFK did things to help and otherwise only the Clinton years boosted their economy, so OF COURSE they like the Clintons.

By age, it's the fifth oldest state demographically and Clinton always does better with the over-65 crowd.

So there's a number of reasons. But how will it be spun when the Oregon primary has Obama taking the majority of the white vote? WE have racists here, a very small percentage of Blacks, plenty of working class whites. And he's going to win them, as he did in a few states.

Ultimately, the strength of racism varies in different states. Education levels matter, as does age and other reasons.Southern Dems (and Clinton is perceived that way because Bill was) do better in the general elections in Southern and some border states like WV. As the historical record shows, that's because the party split in the Civil Rights era and so racism does, still, play a very key role. Not the only one, but it remains the pre-eminent one. (Just consider that John Edwards carried 7% in WV, as further evidence of such bias).

There's plenty of state-by-state polls that show exactly how Obama would do against McCain. He's leading in MI, PA and CO, for example.

You'll never be able to predict general election results from primary results. Any veteran election watcher can tell you that.

And comparing Clinton to McCain or Obama vs McCain, there's only half a dozen states that vary and Clinton and Obama perform within 5 electoral votes of each other.

So save yourself a lot of speculating and just read the recent polls.

Try pollster.com or fivethirtyeight.com for the better polls and demographic explanations.

There are three reasons Obama has done poorly in Appalachia:

1) Uneducated, older white voters tend not to like Obama. Appalachia has a very high concentration of HS-or-less, older white voters. WV has the lowest college education rate in the country. And within West Virginia, Obama performed worst where education levels were lowest. There are all sorts of deep sociological reasons why uneducated whites don't like Obama - including race, status, whiteness, etc - but I'll leave that aside for now.

2) Appalachian voters cherish the familiar. To get elected in Blount County, it matters who your daddy knew and so on. If nobody knew your daddy, nobody knows you. And if nobody knows you, no advertising or campaigning will help. Clinton is well-known in Appalachia. Obama is not. Moreover, Clinton is more culturally familiar than Barack Obama, and in Appalachia that matters a great deal. Obama scored poorly on "trustworthiness." Why? I bet a lot of West Virginians think Obama is a secret Muslim and is lying about his religion.

3) Obama never tried to overcome these barriers. He made token appearances in WV and never went to western NC, east TN, or southwest VA. He traveled through central PA with Bob Casey for a bit but that was all. You can't win if you don't try.

Fortunately, most of America does not share these characteristics. And West Virginia is the only state that comprises them entirely. Obama will be able to overcome these issues in OH and PA, and very possibly VA and NC. TN is impossible because college education levels are low among whites even outside Appalachia.

Remember, if they vote for Clinton, they're racist. If they vote for Obama, they're sexist.

That's the only choices the Democrats offer, be a racist or a sexist.

Wow is there a double standard here. I have yet to see any commentator call the vote in North Carolina against Clinton, with a large African-American constituency voting for Obama, "racist." Why is this a one way word and analysis?

Maybe Obama just does better with voters closer to sea level than those of us in the thin air of the mountains. Maybe it is a highlanders versus lowlanders thing like in Scotland. Or maybe it just goes back to the Civil War where those who lived in the Appalachians did not want to fight for either side (much) as they weren't slave holders.

As for Buncombe and Watauga Counties in NC, they are NOT representative of the rest of WNC. The former has both a high non-native population as well as the only concentration of blacks in the mountains while the latter has a large college population mixed with a lot of retirees.

John

All his spending programs are aimed at Blacks or Save the Polar Bear yuppie stuff.

I'm going to stop supporting him if he keeps droning on about saving those damn bears. I hate those things anyway!

A vote for a bear is a vote against us angry white racists!!